il'iir-n'ifl 


if!(f;!,:!;(i;i!|ii'i 


lllilllili 


l';i,i!iliH  iii.litlililiiiil 


i;;>!l 


I'  I'ii 


f 


•vVX*^^i 


<,t  t\vt  Ibeolofftrar  ^^ 


l-lS'lCfL 


"%, 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


I'^. 


S/ie//.. 


Division 

Section 

Number 


1^ 


li*^'' 


^^  rw^ 


M  ■' 


'  '■' '.  fl 


K/    'V4 


^'  '  i^ 


M-': 


RADICAL  CRITICISM 


A 


RADICAL  CRITICISM 


An   Exposition  and  Examination  of  the   Radical 
Critical   Theory  Concerning  the   Litera- 
ture AND  Religious  System  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures 


FRANCIS   R/BEATTIE 

PROFESSOR   OF  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY  AND   APOLOGETICS   IN  THE   LOUISVILLE 
PRESBYTERIAN   THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  AND   Ail'THOR   OF   "AN   EXAMI- 
NATION  OF  UTILITARIANISM  "  AND    "THE   METHODS   OF  THEISM" 


WITH   AN    INTRODUCTION    BY 

W.   W.   MOORE,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF    OLD    TESTAMENT   LITERATURE    IN    UNION    THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY,    VIRGINIA 


FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 
CHICAGO      :      :     :     NEW  YORK      :      ;      :     TORONTO 

Publishers  of  Evangelical  Literature 


Entered  according  to  Art  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1894,  by 

FLEMING  II.  REVELL  COMPANY, 

In  the  OfTice  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


INTRODUCTION. 

BY  PROFESSOR  W.   W.    MOORE,    D.  D. ,    LL.  D. ,  VIRGINIA. 

The  science  of  Biblical  Criticism  falls  naturally 
into  three  main  divisions  ;  viz.,  the  Lower  Criti- 
cism, which  is  concerned  with  the  accuracy  of 
the  biblical  text  ;  the  Higher  Criticism,  which 
is  concerned  with  the  age  and  character  of  the 
biblical  books ;  and  the  Exegetical  Criticism, 
which  is  concerned  with  the  meaning  of  the 
biblical  statements.  As  the  Exegetical  Criticism 
has  for  its  end  the  ascertaining  of  the  meaning  of 
Scripture  by  the  various  processes  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  as  the  Lower  Criticism  has  for  its  task 
the  determination  of  the  exact  words  of  Scripture 
in  the  original  by  comparison  of  manuscripts  and 
other  processes,  so  the  Higher  Criticism  has  for  its 
task  the  settlement  of  all  questions  pertaining  to 
the  age,  authorship,  structure,  and  trustworthiness 
of  the  various  books  of  Scripture  by  a  study  of 
their  literary  phenomena  and  their  historical  and 
theological  contents.  In  other  words,  criticism  is 
investigation  ;  and  the  criticism  of  contents  is  no 
less  necessary  than  the  criticism  of  text  or  of  in- 
terpretation.     Hence    Dr.    Beattie's    frequent    and 

[5] 


6  INTR  OD  UCTION. 

hearty  commendation  of  the  Higher  Criticism, 
properly  defined  as  a  searching  examination  of  the 
form  and  the  facts  of  Holy  Scripture.  Hence  also 
Professor  Mead's  emphatic  assertion  :  "I  regard 
the  Higher  Criticism  as  not  only  legitimate,  but  as 
very  useful,  and  indiscriminate  condemnation  of  it 
as  foolish.  Genuine  criticism  is  nothing  but  the 
search  after  truth  ;  and  of  this  there  cannot  be  too 
much. " 

But,  as  the  Lower  Criticism  has  been  abused  by 
those  who  have  insisted  upon  radical  reconstruc- 
tions of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  as  the  Exegetical 
Criticism  has  been  abused  by  those  who  have  pro- 
pounded false  theories  of  interpretation,  from  the 
days  of  the  Talmudists  down  to  the  present  time, 
so  the  Higher  Criticism  has  been  abused  by  those 
who  have  engaged  in  wild  speculation  concern- 
ing the  history,  literature,  and  religion  of  the 
ancient  Hebrews.  It  is  against  the  abuse  of  this 
science  that  Dr.  Beattie's  book  is  directed,  as  the 
title  of  the  work  itself  indicates.  He  sees  the 
gravity  of  the  issue  ;  he  knows  that  "the  assaults 
of  Colenso,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen  are  delivered 
against  the  central  keep  of  Protestantism,  —  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Bible  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion." And  yet  he  avoids  both  of  the  mistakes 
into  which  so  many  conservative  writers  of  less 
learning  and  ability  have  fallen.      In  the  first  place, 


INTR  OD  UCTION.  7 

he  does  not  commit  the  blunder  of  conceding  that 
the  rationahsts  are  the  only  scientific  students  of 
Scripture,  by  permitting  them  to  monopolize  the 
name  of  "higher  critics."  The  popular  miscon- 
ception of  this  title,  by  which  it  is  made  to  mean 
superior  critics,  and  which  implies  that  all  who 
bear  it  are  arrogant  and  supercilious  as  well  as 
hostile  to  the  Bible,  is  indeed  widespread  even 
among  ministers.  But  there  is  all  the  more  reason 
to  correct  this  impression,  though  it  undoubtedly 
requires  courage  to  do  it^  and  to  make  it  clear  that 
the  term  "Higher  Criticism"  has  a  well-established 
meaning  among  biblical  scholars,  having  been  so 
called  for  the  simple  reason  that  ' '  the  study  of  the 
contents  of  a  book  will  always  be  considered  a. 
higher  study  than  that  of  the  words  in  which  those 
contents  are  expressed."  In  the  second  place,  Dr. 
Beattie  does  not  rely  upon  hysterical  vituperation 
and  indiscriminate  abuse  of  the  men  whose  views 
he  combats,  but  upon  clear  definition,  and  solid 
argument,  and  Holy  Scripture.  It  has  made  us 
sick  at  heart  to  observe  how  many  of  those  who 
have  undertaken  to  speak  in  the  popular  periodicals 
for  the  conservative  side  in  this  controversy  have, 
by  their  want  of  discrimination  and  their  violent 
and  abusive  tone,  injured  our  cause  and  fostered  a 
timorous  view  of  truth.  Non  tali  aiixilio  ncc  de- 
fcnsoribiis  istis. 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

The  manner  in  which  our  author  handles  this 
difficult  and  exciting  subject  is  very  different. 
While  he  is  absolutely  uncompromising  in  his  op- 
position to  the  errors  of  a  destructive  criticism,  his 
tone  is  not  that  of  a  man  who  is  trembling  for  the 
ark  ;  but  rather  that  of  one  who  knows  whereof 
he  speaks  and  why  he  maintains  the  old  views  con- 
cerning the  integrity,  authorship,  and  date  of  the 
various  portions  of  the  Bible  ;  and  we  venture  the 
assertion  that  his  discriminating  and  dignified  dis- 
cussion will  do  more  good  among  intelligent  people 
than  all  the  objurgation  and  rhodomontade  of  our 
slashing  sciolists  old  and  young  combined.  There 
is  earnest  work  to  be  done  in  the  battle  with  those 
radical  critics  who  are  threatening  the  foundations 
of  our  faith,  and  it  is  refreshing  to  see  a  man  enter 
this  conflict  who  appreciates  the  gravity  of  the 
crisis,  who  possesses  the  requisite  equipment,  and 
who  knows  the  true  method  of  our  defense. 

There  is  urgent  need  of  such  work  as  this  just 
now.  The  aggressiveness  of  the  negative  critics 
and  the  fascinating  presentation  of  their  views  in 
various  popular  journals  make  it  the  duty  of  con- 
servative scholars  to  put  all  the  facts  within  the 
reach  of  the  general  reader.  Dr.  Beattie's  book  is 
sound,  timely,  and  readable.  May  the  God  of 
truth  prosper  this  enlightened  endeavor  to  confirm 
the  faith  of  the  people  in  his  infallible  word. 


PREFACE. 

The  substance  of  this  little  treatise  appeared  dur- 
ing the  past  year  as  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Chris- 
tian Observer.  These  articles  are  now  issued  in  a 
permanent  form  in  response  to  the  expressed  desire 
of  friends  whose  favorable  judgment  the  writer  val- 
ues very  highly.  They  are  published  with  some 
necessary  verbal  corrections,  and  a  few  additions 
are  made  at  important  points  in  the  discussion. 
The  arrangement  of  the  articles  is  slightly  changed, 
and  a  table  of  contents  is  added. 

It  is  proper  to  say  that  these  articles  do  not  pro- 
fess to  be  either  a  technical  or  a  complete  discus- 
sion of  the  important  subject  with  which  they  deal. 
They  were  originally  intended  for  the  general  read- 
ers of  a  weekly  religious  newspaper,  rather  than 
for  any  scholarly  circle.  This  accounts  for  the 
somewhat  popular  form  into  which  the  discussion  is 
cast,  and  which  it  has  been  deemed  best  to  retain. 
In  this  form  it  is  hoped  that  the  articles  may  give 
to  that  class  of  earnest  minds,  who  desire  a  popular 
rather  than  a  technical  treatment  of  the  Higher 
Criticism,  an  intelligible  view  of  a  subject  which 
excites  so  much  interest  at  the  present  day. 

[9] 


10  PREFACE. 

That  such  a  popular  discussion  of  this  subject  is 
needful  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  certain  methods 
of  historical  criticism  which  may  justly  be  termed 
destructive  are  now  set  forth  in  various  attractive 
and  popular  forms.  It  has  passed  from  the  study 
of  the  scholar  to  the  circle  of  the  general  reader. 
It  no  longer  speaks  only  in  technical  terms,  but  ex- 
presses itself  in  the  language  of  the  common  people. 
If  this  destructive  criticism  be  dangerous  as  thus 
presented,  an  exhibition  of  its  serious  defects,  in  as 
simple  terms  as  possible,  may  serve  a  useful  pur- 
pose. 

Another  thing  is  also  aimed  at  in  this  treatise. 
Care  has  been  taken  to  point  out  that  the  questions 
raised  by  the  Higher  Criticism  are  proper  matters 
of  study  at  the  hands  of  biblical  scholars.  It  is 
claimed  that  in  dealing  with  these  questions  there 
are  legitimate  and  illegitimate  methods  of  procedure. 
An  attempt  is  made  to  exhibit  the  former,  and  to 
utter  a  warning  against  the  latter.  This  little  book, 
therefore,  is  not  an  assault  upon  the  reverent  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Scriptures,  but  upon  the  illegitimate 
methods,  and  destructive  results  of  a  certain  class 
of  modern  critics.  In  exposing  the  false  we  con- 
serve the  true  in  biblical  study.  This  work  is 
now  sent  forth  with  the  earnest  prayer  that  it 
may  serve  the  interests  of  the  truth,  and  be  for  the 
honor  of  the  Master.  Francis  R.  Beattie. 

Louisville,  January,  rSg^. 


CONTENTS. 


Part  I.  —  Introductory. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Preliminary         ........     21 

Importance  of  the  subject  —  The  nature  of  the  discussion 
—  The  popular  attention  arrested  —  Earnestness  in  advo- 
cacy of  certain  views. 

CHAPTER  H. 

Higher  Criticism  Defined         .  .  ...     27 

Biblical  Criticism  defined  —  Textual  or  Lower  Criticism  de- 
scribed—  Higher  or  Historical  Criticism  described  —  Its 
sphere. 

CHAPTER  ni. 

Radical  Higher  Criticism  Defined  .           .           -34 

Difficult  to  define  —  Various  names  given  to  it  —  Matter  of 

method,  attitude,  and  standpoint  —  Its  bearing  on  the 
supernatural. 


Part  II. —  History  of  the  Critical  Movement. 

CHAPTER  I. 
Its  History         .  .......     43 

Early   stages  —  Porphyry  —  Spinoza  —  Relation  to  panthe- 
ism —  Simon  —  Clericus. 


12  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  II. 

Its  History  Continued        ......     49 

English    deism  —Collins  —  Jean    Astruc  —  His  conjectures 

—  Raised  difficulties — Transition  to  Germany. 

CHAPTER  III. 

Its  History  Continued 55 

De  Wette  and  Paulas  —  Vatke  and  George  —  Reuss  — 
Hegel's  philosophy  —  Strauss. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Its  History  Continued       ......     61 

The  Tubingen  School  — Baur  and  Tendency  Theory  —  Graf 

—  Kuenen  —  Wellhausen. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Its  History  Concluded       ......     68 

Robertson  Smith — Transition    to    Britain  —  Toy — Briggs 

—  Driver  and  Cheyne  —  Harper — Conservatives:  Ranke, 
Kurtz,  Hengstenberg,  Konig,  Klostermann,  Watts,  Green, 
Osgood,  Bissell,  Warfield. 


PART  III.  —  Exposition  of  R.-vdical  Higher 
Criticism. 

CHAPTER  I. 
Preliminary         ........     79 

Higher  Criticism  began  without  the  Church  —  But  in  mod- 
ern times  is  within  it  —  Warning — False  theories  slowly 
mature  results  —  No  objection  to  legitimate  Higher  Criti- 
cism—  Practical  considerations. 


CONTENTS.  13 

CHAPTER  II. 
Philosophical  Presuppositions         .  ...     87 

A  caution  —  Import  of  the  philosophy  held  —  The  Hegelian 
philosophy  —  Pantheism  again  —  The  supernatural  ignored 
or  rejected  —  Kuenen. 

CHAPTER  III. 
Philosophical  Presuppositions  Continued        .         .     95 

Relation  of  Higher  Criticism  to  inspiration — Radical  Criti- 
cism  rejects   or   reconstructs  the  doctrine  —  Some  seek  to 
hold  sound  views  —  Three  positions  stated  —  Natural  evolu-     V 
tion  the  fourth  philosophical  presupposition. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Methods  of  Advanced  Criticism       .         .         .     103 

Theoretical  nature  of  these  methods  —  A  theory  as  to  the 
national  life  of  Israel  —  As  to  the  religious  system  —  And  as       \ 
to  the  sacred  literature  of  that  system. 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Documentary  Hypothesis         ....     112 

The  Hypothesis  explained  —  Various  symbols  described  — 
How  applied  to  explain  the  production  of  the  Scriptures. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Three  Codes      .......     12:?. 

The  theory  of   the   Codes    explained — Covenant  Code  — 
Deuteronomic   Code  —  Priestly    or    Levitical   Code — The      ^. 
Law  of  holiness. 


14  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Some   General   Features       .....     130 

Reconstruction  by  means  of  the  Codes  —  Features  of  the 

literature  —  The   era   of  Josiah  —  The  period  of    Ezra  — 

Ezekiel  —  The  Tabernacle  idea. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  History      ........     138 

The  history  and  the  ritual  —  The  prophetical  and  the  priestly 
lines  —  The  origin,  codification,  and  writing  of  laws  — 
Traditional  explanations  —  Fictitious  theory  —  Pseudony- 
mous authorship. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The   Prophets  and  the  Psalms       ....     146 

The  prophets  and  the  law  —  Not  the  law  and  the  prophets 
—  Writing  prophets  early  —  Hosea,  Jonah,  and  Amos  — 
Isaiah  —  The  law  and  ritual  post-prophetic  —  Psalms 
largely  post-exilic  and  non-Davidic  also  —  Import  of  this. 


Part  IV.  —  Critical  Examination. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Preliminary       .  .......      157 

The  present  current  debate  of  vital  importance  —  Ques- 
tions lie  deeper  than  mere  authorship  and  literary  style  — 
The  nature  of  the  religion  of  the  Scriptures  involved  —  No 
assumptions  allowed  —  No  safe  middle  course  in  the  con- 
troversy—  Conservative  criticism  has  an  important  task. 


CONTENTS  15 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Underlying  Philosophy 165 

The  underlying  philosophy  criticised  —  Whether  deistic  or 
pantheistic,  defective  —  Bearing    on    inspiration  considered 

—  No  really  inspired  Scriptures  —  Higher  Criticism  sub- 
jective in  its  radical  phases. 

CHAPTER  III. 
Its  Philosophy  of  Religion     .....     174 

Naturalistic  Evolution  cannot  explain   all   religion — Com- 
parative Religion  —  A  mere  assumption  —  Factors  in  Chris-      ^ 
tianity  not  in  other  religions — Advance  not  accounted  for 

—  Law  of  natural  progress  is  Degeneration. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
General  Historical  Defects  ....     183 

History  gives  important  tests  —  Historicity  of  the  Scriptures 

—  Each  age  presupposes  the  previous  age  —  Silence  regard- 
ing any  observance  does  not  prove  non-existence —  No  good 
account   given  of  the  revolt  of  the  ten   tribes  by  radical 

.   critics  —  Other  important  historical  matters. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Particular  Historical  Defects      ....     192 

Testimony  of  Josephus — Historic  setting  of  the  Law — Looks 
back  to  Egypt  and  forward  to  Canaan — Reform  under 
Josiah  and  the  restoration  under  Ezra  not  well  explained  — 
Choice  of  a  king  —  Amalekites  —  Attempts  to  explain  away 
fail. 


16  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Documentary  Hypothesis  ....  201 
Hypothesis  had  a  doubtful  origin  —  Astruc — Too  much 
stress  laid  upon  the  documents  —  Radical  Critics  superficial 
—  The  hypothesis  cannot  now  be  proved  —  Names  "Je- 
hovah" and  "  Elohim  "  explained  —  Destroys  the  organic 
unity  of  Scripture. 

CHAPTER  Vn. 
The  Three  Codes     .......     210 

Proof  of  the  codes  needed  —  Not  necessarily  successive  — 
Lack  of  agreement  as  to  the  order  of  the  Codes  —  Can 
trace  the  Priestly  Code  back  to  the  Conquest  —  Why  all 
ascribed  to  Moses  ? 

CHAPTER  Vni. 
Deuteronomy     ........     218 

This  the  great  test  —  Mosaic  origin  natural  —  Laws  in 
Deuteronomy  what  we  would  expect  —  Silence  proves 
nothing  —  Deuteronomy  not  first  to  enjoin  worship  at  one 
sanctuary  —  Its  unity  —  Can  trace  Deuteronomy  back  to 
the  days  of  the  Conquest. 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Graded  Priesthood  .         .         .         ,         .     226 

Three  grades  —  So  from  the  first  —  Deuteronomy  —  Special 
provision  made  for  the  support  of  Levites — Historical 
books  prove  three  orders  from  the  first  —  Tabernacle  im- 
plied the  three  orders. 

CHAPTER  X. 
The  Tabernacle        .......     234 

Explanations  of  Radical  Criticism  far-fetched  — Tabernacle 
suited  for  wilderness  —  Lale  origin  confusing  —  No  use 
after  the  Exile  —  History  proves  early  existence  —  Import 
of  all  this. 


CONTENTS,  17 

CHAPTER  XL 
The  Great  Feasts    .......     242 

The  great  feasts  described  —  Not  nature  festivals  —  True 
view  of  the  feasts  —  Silence  proves  nothing  —  Time  set  for 
feasts  —  Purpose  of  the  feasts  perverted  —  History  proves 
early  existence  of  the  feasts. 

CHAPTER  XH. 
The  Prophets    ........     250 

The  Radical  Critics  minimize  prophecy  —  No  proof  of  the 
inversion  of  the  order  of  the  law  and  prophets  —  Silence  — 
Natural  development,  if  admitted,  proves  too  much  —  The 
prophets  often  call  the  people  back  to  a  neglected  law  — 
Prophets  allude  to  the  Exodus  in  a  way  which  tells  against 
Radical  Criticism  —  Prophets  did  not  originate  ethic  mono- 
theism —  Advanced  ideas. 

CHAPTER  XHI. 
The  Psalms        ........     258 

Psalms  not  merely  the  praise-book  of  the  second  temple  — 
Davidic  authorship  of  many  of  the  Psalms  not  disproved 

—  History  alluded  to  in  the  Psalms  —  The  religious  ideas  of 
the  Psalms  in  harmony  with  that  age  —  Not  post-exilic  in 
spirit  —  Teach  monotheism  —  Presuppose  the  law. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
The  Gospel  Narratives  ......     267 

Import  of  this  topic  —  Gospel  history  refutes  —  Ascribe 
Mosaic  origin  to  the  law  —  Also  the  priestly  system  —  Bear- 
ing on  Isaiah  —  Radical  Criticism  signally  fails  on  this  field 

—  Kenosis. 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Other  New  Testament  Books  ....     276 

Wide  field  — Acts  —  Romans —  Galatians —  Hebrews —  All 
agree  with  the  views  of  Conservative  Criticism. 

2 


IS  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Doctrinal  Considerations 286 

Dogmatics  and  Exegesis —  Breaks  unity  of  Scripture  —  Re- 
casts inspiration  —  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  Christ  im- 
pugned—  Redemptive  doctrines  affected  —  Work  of  Holy 
Spirit  impaired. 

CHAPTER  XVn. 
The  Evidence  of  Arch.eology         ....     294 
Highly    important  —  Destroys    mythical  theory — Confirms 
history  —  This  establishes  Mosaic  origin   of   law  —  Proves 
early  origin   of   writing — Shows   high  civilization  in  early 
times  —  Names  given. 

CHAPTER  XVHI. 
Summary 305 

The  history,  the  exposition,  and  the  main  results  of  the 
Criticism  summarized. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
Concluding  Remarks  ......     314 

Legitimate  Higher  Criticism  useful  —  Illegitimate  baneful 
— Claims  of  radical  critics  arrogant  —  Present  status  of  the 
controversy  estimated  —  Final  outcome  not  doubtful  —  The 
spirit  and  methods  of  radical  criticism  dangerous  to  evan- 
gelical views  of  truth  —  Higher  Criticism  and  our  standards 
—  A  challenge  —  Conclusion. 


PART  I . 
INTRODUCTORY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

In  a  few  brief  chapters,  it  is  our  purpose  to 
discuss,  in  a  somewhat  popular  way,  some  of  the 
principles,  methods,  and  results  of  modern  ad- 
vanced Higher  Criticism  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
and  of  the  proposed  reconstructions  of  j:he  religious 
system  which  they  contain.  Most  of  our  readers 
have  heard  more  or  less  of  the  Higher  Criticism, 
and  yet  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  not  very 
many  have  clear  views  in  regard  to  what  it  really 
is.  Perhaps  fewer  still  understand  the  distinction 
between  a  sound  and  legitimate  treatment  of  the 
questions  which  properly  belong  to  Higher  Criti- 
cism, and  a  false  and  illegitimate  procedure  which 
may  be  followed  in  dealing  with  these  questions. 
We  trust  that  a  brief  treatise,  written  in  a  some- 
what popular  manner,  may  enable  our  readers  to 
form  more  definite  opinions  in  regard  to  some  things 
that  are  at  best  vague  and  ill-defined  even  in  many 
intelligent  minds.  Above  all,  we  earnestly  hope 
that  what  we  shall  say  may  minister  to  the  confir- 
mation of  the  faith  of  all  our  readers  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  as  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  in  the 
divinity  of  the  redemptive  scheme  which  they  un- 

[21] 


22  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

fold  through  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and  Sav- 
iour of  men.  This  chapter  will  be  introductory  in 
its  nature. 

Biblical  studies  have  always  possessed  deep  inter- 
est for  thoughtful  minds.  The  sacred  literature  of 
the  Christian  system,  in  its  origin,  contents  and 
purpose,  has  enga.ged  mere  earnest  and  scholarly 
attention  than  any  other  literature  in  the  world. 
We  see  this  interest  in  all  the  ages.  The  Jewish 
Rabbis,  the  Christian  Fathers,  and  mediaeval  Scho- 
lastics illustrate  in  various  ways  this  interest  and 
attention.  ^  Since  the  Reformation,  biblical  studies 
have  been  diligently  pursued,  and  at  the  present 
day  the  devotion  to  these  studies  is  extensive  and 
ardent.  The  number  of  books  that  are  published 
annually,  dealing  directly  or  indirectly  with  biblical 
topics,  is  full  proof  of  this  statement,  and  this  fact 
constitutes  one  of  the  hopeful  signs  of  the  times. 

At  the  present  day,  the  questions  most  debated 
are  critical,  rather  than  dogmatic,  in  their  nature." 
The  discussions  are  literary,  rather  than  doctrinal  ; 
historical,  rather  than  theological.  Soon  after  the 
rise  of  the  modern  school  of  literary  and  historical 
criticism,  less  than  a  century  ago,  we  find  that  its 
principles  and  methods  were  applied  to  the  sacred 
Scriptures.  The  books  of  the  Bible  were  subjected 
to  rigid  scrutiny,  and  the  results  reached  in  certain 
quarters  were  startling.  In  the  earlier  decades  of 
the  present  century,  rationalistic  criticism  in  Ger- 
many in  the  hands  of  men  like  Paulus,  Eichhorn, 


PRELIMINARY.  23 

Semler,  and  De  Wette,  made  sad  havoc  with  the 
narratives  of  the  Scriptures,  and  paved  the  way 
for  the  mythical  theories  of  Vatke  and  Strauss  in 
regard  to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  respect- 
ively. 

During  the  past  decade  or  two,  more  cautious, 
though  scarcely  less  destructive,  criticism  has  pre- 
vailed extensively  in  certain  quarters,  and  the 
Scriptures  have  been  subjected  to  patient  investi- 
gation and  almost  painfully  microscopic  inspection. 
Again  and  again  the  sacred  records  have  refused  to 
yield  to  the  assaults  made  on  them,  or  to  melt 
away  in  the  critic's  crucible.  As  to  the  wide- 
spread prevalence  of  this  school  of  criticism,  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  and  we  would  be  unwise  not  to 
seek  to  understand  its  import.  Still  we  need  have 
no  fear  as  to  the  outcome  of  the  conflict.  As  the 
oak  upon  the  mountain  side,  swept  by  many  a 
stormy  gale,  has  its  roots  made  the  stronger,  and 
its  fiber  knit  the  firmer,  by  the  storms,  so,  when 
these  repeated  gusts  of  criticism  shall  have  passed 
away,  as  we  believe  ere  long  they  shall,  the  Script- 
ures will,  no  doubt,  appear  to  be  more  than  ever 
the  "word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  for- 
ever." 

In  Holland  and  Germany  advanced  criticism  has 
during  the  past  twenty-five  years  had  many  advo- 
cates. In  1886,  Kuenen,  of  Leyden,  wrote:  "I 
am  no  longer  advocating  a  heresy,  but  am  expound- 
ing the  received  view  of  European  critical  scholar- 


24  RADICAL   CRITICISM. 

ship."  Professor  Curtiss,  in  an  article  written 
some  years  ago,  expresses  the  conclusion  that 
' '  Lachmann,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  the  only  Old 
Testament  professor  in  a  German  university  who 
still  defends  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch." He  might  have  added  that  Konig  of 
Leipzig  still  held  the  conservative  views  on  this 
point. 

About  the  year  1880,  Professor  Robertson  Smith, 
of  Aberdeen,  imported  some  of  the  German  ration- 
alistic methods  of  criticism  into  Scotland,  and  tried 
the  impossible  task  of  pursuing  these  methods  in 
dealing  with  the  Scriptures,  and  at  the  same  time 
of  maintaining  their  distinctively  supernatural  ori- 
gin,  and  their  plenary  inspiration. 

Since  that  time  one  and  another  scholar  in  Brit- 
ain and  America  has  drawn,  directly  or  indirectly, 
on  the  resources  of  Germany,  and  by  that  means 
we  have,  during  the  last  ten  years,  been  made 
more  or  less  familiar  with  the  term  Higher  Criti- 
cism, Indeed,  it  has  almost  become  the  fashion 
in  some  quarters  to  profess  to  be  a  higher  critic  ; 
and  to  make  this  profession  is  boldly  claimed  by 
some  to  be  the  only  passport  which  admits  its 
happy  possessor  to  this  select  circle  of  really  en- 
lightened biblical  scholarship.  But  fashions  have 
their  little  day,  and  often  change.  Those  who 
have  not,  or  do  not  care  to  possess,  this  passport 
are  set  aside  with  a  wave  of  the  hand,  and  their 
critical  opinions  go  for  nothing  with  the  aristocratic 


PRELIMINARY.  25 

biblical  scholars.  We  had  always  inclined  to  the 
opinion  that  humility  and  sobriety  of  mind  were 
essential  traits  of  the  true  scholar,  but  the  pre- 
sumption and  rashness  of  many  of  these  modern 
enlightened  critics  has  greatly  perplexed  us  in  con- 
tinuing to  hold  this  opinion. 

In  Britain,  at  the  present  da}',  men  like  Professor 
Bruce,  of  Glasgow,  Professors  Driver  and  Cheyne, 
of  Oxford,  and  others,  are  all  more  or  less  in  sym- 
pathy with  advanced  critical  conclusions  regarding 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  and  the  religion  of 
Israel,  though  Bruce  is  by  no  means  prepared  to  go 
as  far  as  Driver  and  Cheyne  in  this  direction.  In 
this  country,  Professors  Briggs,  Smith,  Toy,  and 
others  represent  the  same  school  of  criticism. 
These  scholars  boldly  claim  that  their  destructive  or 
reconstructive  conclusions  must  prevail.  Some- 
times, with  a  coolness  that  would  be  amusing,  were 
it  not  so  serious,  the  conclusions  of  advanced  criti- 
cism are  assumed  to  be  already  fully  proved,  and 
schemes  of  Apologetics  or  systems  of  Theology  are 
drawn  up  under  that  assumption.  We  do  not  vent- 
ure a  prediction  here,  but  we  are  prompted  to  ask 
a  question  and  leave  time  to  give  the  answer  :  If 
the  foundations  upon  which  the  critics  are  recon- 
structing Apologetics  and  Theology  be  destroyed, 
what  will  the  critics  do  } 

Then,  too,  these  critics  are  busy  writing  books 
and  circulating  magazines  to  advocate  their  views. 
To  a  certain  extent  they  have  the  ear  of  many  read- 


26  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

ers,  and  there  are  features  of  attractiveness  about 
their  writings.  It  is  possible  that  the  perusal  of 
their  writings  may  be  perplexing  some  honest  minds, 
and  threatening  to  shake  their  confidence  in  the 
Scriptures.  Perhaps,  also,  the  foes  of  Christianity 
may  find  in  the  results  of  the  critics'  work,  some 
weapons  made  ready  to  their  hands  for  a  fresh 
attack  upon  the  Christian  system. 

Taking  all  these  things  into  account,  we  are 
inclined  to  think  that  every  earnest  defender  of 
Christianity  is  bound  to  examine  the  methods  and 
conclusions  of  the  critics  "to  see  whether  the  things 
which  they  affirm  are  so."  At  the  same  time,  the 
utmost  care  should  be  taken,  while  rejecting  what 
is  false  in  these  methods  and  conclusions,  that  we 
retain  firmly  in  our  possession  the  sound  method  of 
dealing  with  the  main  questions  belonging  to  that 
branch  of  sacred  learning  which  is  called  Higher 
Criticism.  Above  all,  if  the  bold  claims  of  the  critics 
are  true,  and  if  it  be  so  that  we  must  abandon  our 
long  cherished  views,  it  is  only  fair  that  we  should 
know  it  without  delay.  But  if,  as  we  are  convinced 
will  be  the  case,  their  methods  and  conclusions  can 
be  shown  to  be  without  solid  foundation,  the  sooner 
this  also  is  understood,  the  better.  In  this  little 
book  we  hope  to  add  at  least  a  mite,  as  our  contri- 
bution, to  show  some  weak  points  in  that  founda- 
tion, and  so  help  some  of  our  readers  to  understand 
the  ground  upon  which  a  refusal  to  join  the  ranks  of 
the  radical  critics  may  be  securely  founded. 


CHAPTER    II. 

HIGHER    CRITICISM    DEFINED. 

In  the  first  chapter  we  alluded  to  some  introduc- 
tory matters,  and  emphasized  the  serious  nature  of 
some  of  the  results,  which  certain  schools  of  modern 
criticism  are  almost  forcing  upon  biblical  scholar- 
ship at  the  present  day.  Our  main  purpose  in  that 
opening  chapterj^as  to  signalize  our  firm  conviction 
that  the  principles  and  methods  of  the  critics  al- 
luded to,  are  pregnant  with  serious  dangers  to  the 
very  foundations  of  the  Christian  system.  Some  of 
the  assumptions  made,  touch  the  very  bases  of  our 
religious  faith,  and  the  conclusions  reached  are 
often  startling  in  their  nature.  It  is  not  merely 
important  historical  and  literary  questions  that  are 
involved  in  the  views  of  the  advanced  critics,  but  in 
many  cases  the  philosophy  of  the  origin  and  growth 
of  religion  itself  is  up  for  discussion.  And  we  feel 
bound  to  add  that,  even  if  we  were  convinced  that 
this  bold  and  sometimes  arrogant  school  of  criticism 
is  destined  to  speedy  decline  and  to  a  premature  old 
age,  those  who  cannot  join  their  ranks  or  unite 
with  them  in  their  verdicts,  should  not  remain  silent, 
lest  by  their  silence  they  leave  the  impression  on 
some  minds  that  the  old  views  of  the  Bible,  and 

[27] 


28  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

perhaps  the  Bible  itself,  are  no  longer  capable  of 
defense.  It  is  under  this  firm  conviction  that  this 
little  book  is  written  for  the  wide  circle  of  readers 
into  whose  hands  it  may  come. 

In  this  chapter  a  brief  attempt  will  be  made  to 
define  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  to  point  out  its 
legitimate  function,  and  thus  prepare  the  way  to 
describe  in  a  general  manner  those  radical  forms  of 
it,  which  have  at  the  present  day  monopolized  the 
term  almost  entirely. 

The  general  subject  involved  belongs  to  that 
wide  and  interesting  field  of  sacred  learning  known 
as  Biblical  Introduction.  Biblical  Criticism,  as  a 
whole,  belongs  to  that  field,  and  may  be  described 
as  that  branch  of  historical  and  literary  criticism 
which  deals  with  the  various  treatises  which  make 
up  the  sacred  Scriptures  viewed  merely  as  literary 
and  historical  productions.  It  naturally  divides 
itself  into  two  great  branches,  according  to  the  sub- 
ject matter  which  is  considered.  These  are  usually 
termed  Lower  or  Textual  Criticism,  and  Higher  or 
Historical  Criticism.  It  is  not  easy  to  assign  any 
good  reason  why  the  terms  Lower  and  Higher  came 
to  be  used  as  they  now  are,  and  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that  scholars  are  not  yet  agreed  as  to  their 
proper  use,  for  some  writers  are  disposed  to  make 
the  internal  evidences  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Scriptures  the  sphere  of  Lower  Criticism,  and  the 
external  evidences  the  field  for  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism.    We   have   simply  to   use  them  as  we  find 


HIGHER    CRITICISM  DEFINED.  29 

them,  insisting,  however,  that  in  no  real  sense  is 
the  one  of  less  value  than  the  other.  A  brief  ex- 
planation of  each  of  these  great  branches  of  criti- 
cism may  enable  us  to  mark  out  more  clearly  the 
topics  of  which  we  wish  specially  to  treat. 

First  :  Textual  Criticism  is  that  branch  of  the 
science  of  biblical  criticism  which  investigates  and 
seeks  to  determine  the  exact  original  text  of  the 
various  writings  of  which*  the  Holy  Scriptures  are 
composed.  The  task  of  the  lower  critic  is  to  settle 
as  definitely  as  possible  what  the  exact  language 
was  which  the  authors  of  the  various  books  at  first 
wrote  down.  He  seeks  to  ascertain  the  text  of  the 
autographs  of  Holy  Writ.  In  doing  this  the  va- 
rious manuscripts  of  the  Scriptures  are  collected, 
collated,  and  carefully  compared.  The  age  of  these 
manuscripts,  the  form  of  the  letters  used,  the  nature 
of  the  vellum  upon  which  they  are  written,  and 
many  other  things  of  minute  detail  are  taken  into 
account  by  the  textual  critic  in  the  discharge  of  his 
difficult  but  important  office. 

Textual  Criticism  also  inspects  with  care  the 
several  versions  and  translations  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  diligently  compares  these  with  the  original 
text,  for  the  purposes  of  correction,  or  confirma- 
tion. It  also  estimates  the  value  of  the  numerous 
quotations  of  Scripture  found  in  early  and  later 
religious  writings,  in  order  thereby  to  obtain  addi- 
tional information  as  to  what  was  the  precise  text 
of  the  original   manuscripts.      In   this  department 


30  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

of  the  work,  much  patient  and  painstaking  work 
has  been  done,  especially  for  the  New  Testament, 
by  scholars  like  Scholz,  Griesbach,  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott,  and  man}'  others. 
Perhaps  the  main  task  which  yet  remains  for  the 
textual  critic  to  perform  in  biblical  study,  is  to  do 
for  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  what  these  schol- 
ars have  done  for  that  of  the  New. 

Secondly  :  Higher  Criticism  usually  takes  for 
granted  the  general  results  of  Textual  Criticism, 
and  proceeds  to  investigate  various  questions  as  to 
the  origin,  date  of  composition,  authorship,  and 
mode  of  production,  of  the  several  writings.  In 
the  main,  though  not  exclusively,  it  is  concerned 
with  questions  of  the  authenticity  and  genuineness 
of  the  different  books  of  Scripture,  but  it  at  the 
same  time  usually  emphasizes  the  inquiry  into  the 
mode,  or  manner,  of  the  composition,  or  compila- 
tion, of  these  books.  The  general  nature  of  the 
books  is  investigated,  and  their  date,  authorship, 
and  value  decided  on,  parti}'  by  literary,  partly  by 
historical,  and  partly  by  subjective  tests.  The 
validity  of  the  traditional  views,  as  they  are  called, 
is,  by  certain  critics,  called  in  question,  and  a  good 
deal  of  freedom  is  exhibited  and  frequent  hypothe- 
ses are  announced  in  regard  to  the  ^any  questions 
which  arise  for  discussion  in  this  wide  and  ever- 
widening  field. 

In  addition,  the  higher  critic  inquires  particularly 
into  the  various  sources  from  which  the  authors  of 


HIGHER    CRITICISM  DEFINED.  31 

the  sacred  writings  obtained  the  materials  for  their 
Hterary  productions,  and  he  investigates  with  ahnost 
microscopic  care,  and  sometimes  with  the  personal, 
or  subjective  factor  largely  present,  the  manifold 
features  of  literary  idiom  and  style  of  the  various 
writings  in  the  Bible.  He  also  extends  the  scope 
of  his  inquiries,  and  scrutinizes  the  history  and  re- 
ligious institutions  of  the  different  peoples  alluded 
to  in  the  Scripture  narratives.  The  literary  environ- 
ment of  the  biblical  authors  is  thus  studied  with 
care,  and  the  higher  critic  finds  himself  engaged  with 
a  great  variety  of  questions  in  history,  philosophy, 
ethnology,  and  comparative  religion.  His  field  is 
wide,  his  task  weighty,  so  "he  should  be  clothed 
with  humility." 

The  task,  then,  which  the  higher  critic  under- 
takes is  to  answer  such  questions  as  these  :  Are  the 
sacred  writings  so  well  attested  that  we  can  rely  on 
the  statements  made  therein  t  Were  the  authors 
candid  and  trustworthy  men,  well  informed  in  re- 
gard to  the  matters  of  which  they  wrote  .-*  And  how 
is  the  fact  of  their  inspiration  to  be  viewed  in  this 
connection  ?  Were  the  real  authors  the  persons 
whose  names  stand  now  connected  with  the  various 
books }  What  was  the  actual  manner  of  the  com- 
position of  the  writings  in  question }  What  were 
the  dates,  places,  and  circumstances  of  the  produc- 
tion of  the  several  books  }  Was  the  work  of  the 
reputed  authors  original  composition,  compilation 
of  existing  documents,  or  the  mere  editing  of  already 


32  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

extant  literary  materials  ?  Did  the  development  of 
the  religious  history  of  Israel  take  place  in  the  man- 
ner described  in  the  traditional  view  of  the  sacred 
history,  or  must  reconstruction  be  made  in  order  to 
get  tlie  true  view  ?  What  view  are  we  to  take  of 
the  relations  between  prophecy,  ritual,  and  legisla- 
tion, as  exhibited  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  what 
view  ought  we  to  take  of  early  Christianity  as  set 
forth  in  the  New  ?  And  what  is  the  precise  relation 
of  the  ethical  monotheism  of  Israel,  in  its  origin  and 
growth,  to  the  idolatry  or  pol57theism  of  surround- 
ing nations  ? 

Now  any  writer  who  deals  with  these  questions 
from  any  point  of  view  may  be  termed  a  ' '  higher 
critic."  In  a  general  sense,  therefore,  he  is  a 
higher  critic  who  deals  with  the  questions  above 
stated,  and  similar  questions  which  lie  beyond 
rather  than  in  the  sacred  text.  That  this  is  a 
legitimate  field  for  sacred  scholarship  none  should 
deny.  By  means  of  this  branch  of  criticism  rev- 
erently pursued,  much  of  great  value  has  been 
furnished  to  aid  in  confirming  and  interpreting  the 
Scriptures. 

We  wish  at  this  point  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
we  shall  not  allow  one  school  of  criticism — the  ad- 
vanced— to  drive  another — the  conservative — off 
this  inviting  and  fruitful  field.  The  advanced 
critic  cannot  claim  the  field  as  all  his  own,  till  he 
has  won  it,  and  the  conservative  should  never  re- 
sign the  right  to  deal  with  these  questions  till  he 


HIGHER    CRITICISM  DEFINED.  33 

is  fairly  driven  from  the  field.  He  is  to  be  a 
higher  critic,  and  should  not  be  ashamed  of  his 
task  nor  afraid  to  do  his  duty  in  its  performance. 
But  special  description  of  advanced  higher  criti- 
cism must  be  reserved  for  our  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER    III. 

RADICAL    HIGHER    CRITICISM    DEFINED. 

In  the  last  article  an  attempt  was  made  to  de- 
fine in  a  general  way  Lower  and  Higher  Criticism, 
respectively,  and  to  indicate  the  topics  with  which 
each  is  specially  concerned.  With  some  care  the 
field  of  Higher  Criticism  was  outlined,  and  the 
various  questions  which  it  discusses  were  enumer- 
ated. It  was  also  insisted  that  this  is  an  impor- 
tant and  useful  department  of  sacred  learning  if 
rightly  conducted.  At  the  outset  of  this  article  the 
claim  is  repeated  that  the  conservative  critic  has  a 
perfect  right  to  this  field,  and  that  he  should  not 
be  frightened  away  from  it  by  any  of  the  high  and 
sometimes  boastful  claims,  which  the  advanced 
critics  make  for  peculiar  critical  insight,  and  pro- 
found scholarship. 

Nor  should  the  conservative  critic  be  at  all  irri- 
tated, much  less  discouraged  or  dismayed,  if  he  be 
informed,  as  he  sometimes  may  be,  that  he  is 
really  behind  the  times,  and  scarcely  qualified  to 
express  an  opinion  that  is  worth  anything  upon  the 
questions  raised  by  the  Higher  Criticism.  He 
need  not  be  disturbed  in  any  measure,  if  he  is  set 
down  as  a  traditionalist  ;  for  he  may  console  him- 
[34] 


RADICAL  HIGHER    CRITICISM  DEFINED.      35 

self  with  the  reflection,  that  in  quick  succession 
many  of  the  theories  of  advanced  criticism  have  al- 
ready become  traditional,  and  others  are  in  danger 
of  speedily  suffering  the  same  hard  fate. 

The  conservative  critic,  therefore,  has  a  duty  to 
do  and  a  legitimate  service  to  render  in  this  connec- 
tion. He  is  to  deal  with  all  the  topics  of  sacred 
learning,  which  properly  belong  to  the  field  of 
Higher  Criticism.  In  a  reverent,  patient,  scholarly 
spirit,  he  owes  it  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  to  Him 
who  is  the  Truth,  to  handle  in  the  most  thorough 
manner,  and  according  to  the  methods  which  are 
legitimate,  even  though  they  be  not  new,  the  whole 
subject  matter  of  which  Higher  Criticism  treats. 
As  between  the  conservative  and  advanced  critic,  it 
is  not  simply  a  question  as  to  which  has  a  right  to 
the  field,  but  rather  a  question  as  to  which  has  the 
best  methods,  and  sets  forth  the  more  fully  the 
truth  concerning  the  questions  raised.  In  any  case 
the  conservative  critic  is  to  be  a  higher  critic  as  well 
as  a  lower,  and  serve  the  cause  of  truth  in  both 
fields  by  pursuing  strictly  scientific  methods  of  in- 
vestigation. It  should  be  added  that  in  various 
ways  Lower  and  Higher  Criticism  overlap  each 
other. 

In  this  chapter  we  wish  specially  to  describe  what 
is  now  known  as  a  particular  school  of  Higher  Criti- 
cism. Recent  critical  controversies  have  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  narrowed  the  application  of  the  term 
Higher  Criticism,  and  in  various  ways  modified  its 


36  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

proper  meaning.  In  the  popular  mind,  at  least, 
this  is  the  case  to  a  considerable  extent.  Not  a 
few  intelligent  people  have  the  impression  that  the 
whole  subject  of  Higher  Criticism  is  a  new  discovery 
for  which  we  are  indebted  to  certain  biblical  schol- 
ars in  recent  times.  Some  seem  inclined  to  think 
that  the  Scriptures  were  never  understood  before, 
and  that  modern  criticism  has  actually  given  back 
Christ  to  Theology.  Others,  alarmed  at,  or  dis- 
gusted with,  the  radical  results  of  rationalistic  criti- 
cism, have  too  hastily  concluded  that  the  whole 
thing  is  inherently  evil,  and  ought  to  be  avoided  by 
all  devout  scholars,  but  the  safe  middle  view  is  to 
hold  that  there  is  a  reverent  and  an  irreverent,  a 
legitimate  and  an  illegitimate,  method  of  pursuing 
investigations  and  reaching  conclusions  in  the  field 
of  Higher  Criticism.  It  is  the  latter  which  we  are 
now  to  describe. 

It  is  no  easy  matter  to  describe  this  type  of  criti- 
cism even  in  a  general  way.  It  has  received  certain 
new  titles,  and  is  known  by  a  variety  of  names.  It 
is  sometimes  known  as  the  ' '  newer  criticism. "  Un- 
der this  title,  Dr.  Watts,  .of  Belfast,  reviewed  it  at 
length.  Then  it  is  called  "advanced  criticism," 
inasmuch  as  its  methods  are  new  and  sometimes 
radical.  At  times  it  is  described  as  ' '  historical 
criticism  "  in  the  technical  sense,  since  it  professes 
to  follow  historical  development  closely.  Again,  in 
some  quarters,  it  is  properly  described  as  "ration- 
alistic criticism,"  inasmuch  as  it  either  ignores  or 


RADICAL   HIGHER    CRITICISM  DEFINED.      37 

denies  the  supernatural  factor  in  the  Scriptures  and 
in  the  rehgious  system  which  they  unfold.  The 
terms  "radical"  and  "reconstructive"  have  been 
applied  to  it  with  some  propriety,  since  it  touches 
the  basis  of  the  Christian  system,  and  proposes  its 
reconstruction. 

Perhaps  if  the  critics  of  this  particular  school 
were  allowed  to  describe  themselves,  they  would 
say  that  they  represent  the  critical  or  historico- 
critical  school  of  Higher  Criticism.  A  great  host 
of  writers  in  Holland  and  Germany,  with  a  number 
in  Britain  and  America,  representing  almost  every 
shade  of  opinion  from  cold  rationalism  to  warm 
evangelicalism,  might  be  named  here.  But  we 
defer  doing  so  till  we  sketch  the  history  of  this 
school  of  criticism  in  subsequent  articles. 

The  peculiarity,  therefore,  about  this  school  of 
criticism  consists  not  so  much  in  handling  the 
topics  which  belong  to  Higher  Criticism,  as  in 
dealing  with  them  in  a  particular  manner,  and 
under  certain  presuppositions.  It  is  not  the  sub- 
ject matter  with  which  it  deals,  but  its  critical 
metJiod  which  distinguishes  this  school  of  criticism. 
It  is,  in  some  cases,  its  general  attitude  toward 
the  questions  in  hand  more  than  anything  else  that  . , 
gives  it  its  peculiar  character.  In  other  cases,  it 
is  what  may  be  called  its  standpoint  in  relation  to  v^ 
certain  fundamental  questions  which  underlie  all 
criticism  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  that  marks  of? 
this  school   of  criticism  from   others. 


38  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Nor  is  it  a  question  of  scholarship  merely,  nor 
of  mental  insight  and  critical  judgment  simply, 
which  constitutes  the  peculiar  feature  of  the  school 
of  critics  now  under  our  notice.  At  times  we  are 
reminded  by  its  adherents  that  these  qualities  are 
the  special  heritage  of  this  school,  and  so  it  is  nec- 
essary to  point  out  very  clearly  that  it  is  not  so 
much  their  scholarly  furnishing  for  the  work  of 
criticism,  as  the  freedom  with  which  the  work  is 
done  by  them  that  differentiates  these  particular 
critics  and  their  work  from  conservative  critics. 
Not  infrequently  it  is  the  spirit  of  the  critic  and 
his  general  tone  which  give  him  his  place  in  the 
select  circle  of  higher  critics  properly  so  called. 
J  From  all  this  we  gather  that  the  school  of  criticism 
under  consideration  is  marked  by  its  method,  atti- 
tude,  standpoint,  and  spirit  in  relation  to  the 
J  general  subject  matter  which  belongs  to  Higher 
Criticism. 

This,  of  course,  is  an  exceedingly  meager  de- 
scription of  the  modern  school  of  Higher  Criticism 
of  which  we  hear  so  much  at  the  present  day,  but 
it  is  not  possible  to  speak  of  it  more  definitely  at 
this  stage  without  anticipating  what  can  be  better 
stated  later  on  in  the  course  of  this  treatise,  when 
its  history  and  exposition  are  to  be  presented. 

Then,  too,  the  difficulty  of  general  description  is 
all  the  greater  on  account  of  the  vast  variety  of 
opinion  existing  among  the  adherents  of  this  par- 
ticular school.     There  are  reverent  critics  who  pro- 


RADICAL   HIGHER    CRITICISM  DEFINED.      39 

fess  to  hold  by  the  supernatural,  and  to  believe  in 
inspiration,  and  who  are  in  sympathy  with  the 
standpoint  and  methods  of  the  advanced  critical 
positions.  Then  there  are  those  who  may  be 
termed  "evangelical  critics,"  who  hold  firmly  to 
the  simplicity  of  the  gospel  as  they  conceive  it,  and 
yet  co-operate  with  this  school  in  its  critical  cam- 
paign. Finally,  we  have  the  rationalistic  class  in 
this  school,  who  minimize  or  explain  away  the  su- 
pernatural altogether,  who  take  very  low  views  of 
inspiration,  and  who  are  prepared  to  deal  with  the 
sacred  Scriptures  as  if  they  were  in  no  respect 
different  from,  any  other  literature.  Some  of  the 
rationalistic  critics  openly  set  aside  the  supernat- 
ural entirely,  and  deal  with  everything  on  a  purely 
naturalistic  plane.  It  becomes  a  very  important 
question  as  to  how  far  the  critical  views  of  this 
whole  school  can  be  adopted,  and  thorough-going 
rationalistic  conclusions  be  avoided.  This  question 
will  come  up  later  on  in  these  discussions. 

Amid  such  variet)'  of  view,  it  is  not  easy  to  de- 
scribe in  a  satisfactory  way  the  particular  school  of 
criticism  about  which  we  now  write.  In  closing 
this  article  we  would  especially  emphasize  the  fact 
that  it  is  the  principles  and  methods  of  this  critical 
school,  which  give  it  its  distinctive  character.  If 
these  principles  and  methods  be  essentially  ration- 
alistic in  their  nature,  the  evangelical  and  conserva- 
tive critics  are  surely  warned  that  they  are  in  doubt- 
ful company,  and  on  dangerous  ground  when  they 


40  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

join  the  ranks  of  the  radical  critics.  But  this  must 
suffice  for  description,  and  in  the  next  chapter  we 
shall  begin  to  give  some  account  of  the  rise  and  his- 
tory of  this  school  of  criticism. 


PART  II. 

HISTORY  OF   THE   CRITICAL 
MOVEMENT. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ITS    HISTORY. 

In  the  last  chapter  a  brief  and  general  descrip- 
tion of  radical  Higher  Criticism  was  given.  It 
was  particularly  pointed  out  that  this  school  of 
criticism  is  distinguislied  chiefly  by  its  methods, 
spirit,  and  general  attitude  in  dealing  with  the 
topics  it  discusses.  It  was  not  admitted  that  this 
particular  school  of  criticism  has  any  peculiar 
claim  to  the  field  wherein  its  questions  lie.  And  it 
is  again  insisted  on  that  the  controversy  is  not  for  the 
possession  of  the  field,  but  in  regard  to  the  princi- 
ples, methods,  and  results  of  criticism  in  that  field. 

This  chapter  proposes  to  begin  a  brief  historical 
sketch  of  that  critical  movement  which  in  various 
ways  has  led  on  to  the  development  of  the  modern 
advanced  types  of  Higher  Criticism.  Such  a  sketch 
may  have  a  degree  of  interest  in  itself,  and  it  m.ay 
go  far  to  show  how  it  comes  to  pass  that  unsound 
principles  slowly  but  surely  work  out  disastrous 
results.  And  further,  w^e  venture  to  think  that  a 
plain  outline  of  the  history  of  the  movement  will 
form  a  valuable  critique  of  the  true  nature  of  that 
school  of  criticism  which  is  so  popular  in  certain 
quarters  to-day.      If  the  tree  be  good,  we  may  ex- 

[43] 


44  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

pect  good  fruit,  but  if  the  tree  be  corrupt,  then  we 
can  look  only  for  evil  fruit.  The  historical  sketch 
now  to  be  given  may  enable  us  to  know  the  tree  by 
its  fruits,  or  from  the  fruits  to  judge  the  tree. 

In  the  early  Christian  Church,  but  little  was  done 
in  the  way  of  careful  criticism  or  diligent  exegetical 
study  of  the  Scriptures.  Men  seemed  ready  to  take 
the  plain,  simple  meaning  of  the  sacred  writings, 
and  raise  no  subtle  questions  regarding  them. 
Almost  the  only  writer  in  Patristic  times  who 
touched  upon  the  literary  and  historical  questions 
arising  from  a  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures  in  ac- 
cordance with  rationalistic  methods,  was  Porphyry, 
who  was,  let  it  be  carefully  noted,  one  of  the  chief 
opponents  of  Christianity  during  the  latter  part  of 
the  third  century  after  Christ. 

In  his  opposition  to  Christianity  he  sought  to 
point  out  what  he  thought  were  inconsistencies  and 
inaccuracies  in  the  sacred  records  of  the  Christian 
system.  In  doing  so,  he  examined  critically  the 
history  of  the  people  of  Israel,  and  made  inquiry 
concerning  the  origin  and  development  of  the 
Mosaic  system.  He  attacked,  at  length,  the  book 
of  Daniel,  called  in  question  its  date  and  author- 
ship, sets  forth  in  an  exaggerated  way  certain 
difficulties  in  regard  to  the  mode  in  which  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  were  composed.  In  Porphyry, 
we  have,  without  the  pale  of  the  Church,  and  op- 
posed to  Christianity,  an  acute  and  learned  man, 
giving  hints  of  those  critical  principles  and  methods. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   CRITICAL   MOVEMENT.  45 

which,  in  modern  times,  have  developed  into  a  well- 
defined  movement  within  the  Christian  Church,  and 
among  those  who  are  supposed  to  be  the  trusted 
defenders  of  Christianity.  Perhaps  the  ancient 
critic  was  more  consistent  in  making  his  attack 
from  without,  than  the  modern  rationalistic  critic  is 
in  doing  damage  from  within. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  we 
find  Spinoza,  a  celebrated  speculative  philosopher 
of  the  Jewish  race,  and  the  father  of  modern  pan- 
theism, entering  upon  some  curious,  if  not  profound, 
critical  enquiries  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures.  In 
general,  he  called  in  question  the  traditional  date 
and  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  also 
raised  the  question  whether  the  complete  Mosaic 
law  and  ritual  as  a  definite  system  were  historically 
prior  to  the  development  of  the  Jewish  Church  and 
nation  in  Canaan  after  the  conquest.  He  did  not 
so  much  assert  that  mature  Mosaism  appeared  in 
the  later  stages  of  the  Jewish  history  as  cast  doubt 
and  uncertainity  upon  the  generally  received  view 
among  both  Jews  and  Christians  of  his  day. 

In  his  treatise,  published  in  1670—  "  Tractatus 
TJicologico  PoliticiLs'"  —  Spinoza  was  really  the 
first  to  ascribe  the  possible  origin  of  the  Pentateuch 
in  its  present  form  to  the  time  of  Ezra,  if  not  to 
Ezra  himself.  He  suggests  that  the  final  re-cast- 
ing of  the  books,  usually  regarded  as  the  work  of 
Moses  almost  entirely,  was  done  by  Ezra,  and  those 
associated  with  him.     This  places  these  books  in 


46  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

their  completed  form  in  post-exilic,  rather  than  in 
pre-exilic  times.  Spinoza  further  thinks  it  likely 
that  Ezra  wrote  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  first, 
and  then  afterward  composed  the  remaining  books 
of  the  Pentateuch.  From  the  examination  of  the 
Jewish  history  and  Mosaic  ritual  which  he  makes, 
he  thinks  the  reasonable  conclusion  to  be  that  the 
definite  and  complete  religious  system  of  the  Jewish 
people  belongs  to  a  much  later  age  than  the  time 
of  Moses,  of  Joshua,  and  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 

There  is  much  about  the  philosophy  and  critical 
views  of  Spinoza  that  is  of  the  deepest  interest  and 
importance.  He  was  a  Jew,  who,  for  somie  not 
very  clearly  understood  reason,  was  excommuni- 
cated. He  is  described  as  a  gentle,  devout  man, 
who  found  his  chief  delight  in  the  realms  of  specu- 
lative philosophy.  Still,  it  is  barely  possible  that 
he  was  prompted  to  criticise  the  history  and  re- 
ligion of  his  own  people  by  the  irritation  which  he 
must  have  felt  toward  those  who  put  him  out  of  the 
synagogue.  This  possibility,  we  are  inclined  to 
think,  should  be  kept  in  mind  in  estimating  the 
critical  views  of  this  acute  Jew. 

Spinoza  was  a  pantheist.  He  identified  the  uni- 
versal substance,  or  ground  of  all  existence,  with 
the  Divine  Being.  This  universal  "  substance  "  or 
being  has  for  man's  apprehension  two  attributes, — 
extension  and  thought.  All  finite  existences  are 
modes    of    these    attributes.      These    modifications 


HISTORY  OF  THE   CRITICAL  MOVEMENT   47 

take  place  in  such  a  purely  necessary  way  that  ev- 
erything is  either  natural,  or  supernatural,  accord- 
ing as  we  please  to  use  the  terms.  In  religion,  the 
development  must  take  place  in  the  same  necessi- 
tarian way,  and  the  distinction  between  the  natural 
and  the  supernatural  operations  of  Deity  is  thereby 
obliterated.  Now,  it  is  worth  while  observing  here, 
and  we  allude  to  Spinoza's  pantheism  specially  for 
this  purpose,  the  somewhat  remarkable  fact  that 
the  first  great  exponent  of  modern  pantheism  is 
also  the  virtual  author  of  the  radical,  or  rational- 
istic theory  of  the  religion  and  ritual  of  Israel,  v/hich 
has,  in  recent  years,  caused  so  much  controversy 
among  biblical  scholars.  This  fact  will  appear  all 
the  more  striking  when  we  see,  as  we  shall  later 
on  in  this  sketch,  that  modern  idealistic  pantheism, 
and  radical  views  of  the  questions  in  Higher  Criti- 
cism, emerge  side  by  side  in  Germany.  We  natu- 
rally wonder  whether  there  is  any  logical  and  natural 
connection  between  these  two  things. 

Soon  after  Spinoza,  though  in  many  respects 
opposed  to  him,  we  find  Richard  Simon,  about  the 
year  1678,  dealing  with  some  of  these  critical  ques- 
tions. He  quite  openly  discarded  his  belief  in  the 
unity  of  the  Pentateuch  and  in  its  Mosaic  author- 
ship. At  the  same  time  he  allowed  that  there  may 
have  been  some  kind  of  legislative  kernel  of  the 
law  which  came  from  Moses.  Mature  Mosaism, 
however,  he  distinctly  held,  was  a  development  only 


48  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

found  complete  from  the  days  of  Ezra  onward. 
Simon  gives  us  thus  more  definite  views  than  Spi- 
noza suggested. 

A  few  years  later,  in  1685,  Clericus  unfolded 
views  which  were  even  more  radical  and  startling 
than  those  of  Simon.  In  substance  he  maintained 
that  the  Pentateuch  and  Mosaism  belong  to  a  much 
later  date  than  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  ;  and  he 
was  bold  enough  to  venture  the  assertion  that  it 
owed  its  origin  to  some  Jewish  priest  who  lived 
soon  after  the  overthrow  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  per- 
haps about  the  year  588  b.  c.  With  these  writers 
the  movement  seems  to  have  exhausted  itself  for 
the  time  being,  and  so  for  over  a  century  we  hear 
little  about  these  new  theories  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment history. 

At  this  point  we  may  properly  close  this  article. 
Already  we  have  seen  that  the  essential  elements 
of  rationalistic  critical  theory  originated  outside  of, 
and  in  opposition  to,  the  Church.  We  cannot  fail 
to  note  the  fact,  also,  that  the  modern  critic's  claim 
for  originality  is  seriously  unpaired  by  what  Simon 
and  Clericus  presented  two  centuries  ago. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ITS    HISTORY    CONTINUED. 

In  our  last  chapter  the  history  of  advanced  or  ra- 
tionahstic  Higher  Criticism  was  commenced.  Tlie 
opinions  of  Porphyry,  Spinoza,  Simon,  and  Cleri- 
cus  were  briefly  sketched.  The  important  place  of 
Spinoza,  the  father  of  modern  pantheism,  in  origi- 
nating some  of  the  radical  theories  of  modern 
criticism,  was  signalized,  and  the  striking  connec- 
tion between  pantheism  and  negative  criticism  was 
pointed  out.  In  this  article  we  continue  the  his- 
torical sketch  we  have  in  view. 

Our  last  chapter  closed  Vv^ith  the  end  of  the  sev- 
enteenth century,  and  at  that  period  speculation 
upon  the  critical  problems  presented  by  the  sacred 
Scriptures  subsided  for  a  time.  During  the  eight- 
eenth century  these  critical  theories  of  the  Old 
Testament  literature  and  religion,  together  v/ith 
the  pantheism  of  Spinoza,  were  generally  rejected. 
Only  here  and  there  do  we  find  any  favorable  allu- 
sion to  them,  and  then  usually  by  the  opponents  of 
Christianity  as  a  supernatural  religion. 

The  attacks  made  upon  the  Christian  faith  during 
this  century  were  philosophical  rather  than  critical 
in  their  nature.  These  attacks  are  represented  by 
4  [49] 


50  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

deism  in  England,  materialism  in  France,  and  ra- 
tionalism in  Germany.  Almost  the  only  writer 
among  the  English  deists  who  raised  questions  of  a 
critical  or  literary  nature  regarding  the  Scriptures, 
was  Collins,  who  wrote  about  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  Collins  examined  prophecy, 
and  sought  to  show  that  Christianity  is  founded  on 
various  misinterpretations  of  Jewish  prophecy  into 
which  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  unconsciously 
blundered.  His  work  is  by  no  means  profound,  and 
yet  it  is  of  some  historic  interest  in  this  sketch,  for 
it  further  illustrates  the  critical  movement  as  still 
outside  the  Church,  and  against  Christianity.  In 
Germany  the  beginning  of  the  rationalistic  move- 
ment belongs  to  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
as  we  shall  see  a  little  later  on  in  our  sketch. 

At  this  stage  in  the  history  of  rationalistic  critical 
speculation,  it  is  proper  to  give  some  account  of  the 
influence  of  a  writer  whose  character  and  work  are 
often  little  understood.  We  refer  to  Jean  Astruc, 
a  celebrated  physician,  first  at  Toulouse,  and  after- 
ward for  many  years  at  Paris,  in  France.  He  was 
the  son  of  a  Protestant  pastor,  who  recanted  at  the 
revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  and  entered  the 
Romish  Church,  but  virtually  renounced  religion 
altogether,  for  he  became  a  lawyer,  and  lived  as  a 
philosopher.  Jean  Astruc  was  born  in  1684,  and 
was  professor  in  the  medical  school  at  Toulouse 
from  1 7 10  to  1729.  In  the  latter  year,  with  wealth 
and  wide  reputation  for  medical  knowledge,  he  re- 


ITS  HISTORY  CONTINUED.  51 

moved  to  Paris,  where  he  hved  till  1766.  He  was 
professor  in  the  College  Royal,  had  extensive  prac- 
tice as  a  physician,  and  moved  in  what  was  then 
regarded  as  the  best  social  circles  in  the  gay  French 
capital. 

It  is  worth  while  noting  further  the  fact  that  he 
was  on  intimate  terms  in  Paris  with  the  free  think- 
ers of  that  unbelieving  age.  Here  he  was  often 
one  of  that  literary  circle  which  embraced  men  like 
Fontenelle,  Montesquieu,  Voltaire,  Bolingbroke, 
Chesterfield,  and  other  kindred  spirits,  whose  dis- 
regard for  Christianity  is  well  known.  There  is 
good  reason  to  believe  that  his  private  life  for 
nearly  twenty  years  was  not  without  serious  blem- 
ish. He  became  intimate  soon  after  he  came  to 
Paris  with  the  notorious  Madame  de  Tencin,  whose 
whole  life  was  a  succession  of  intrigue,  vice,  and 
crime.  At  her  death  he  succeeded  in  getting  pos- 
session of  over  200,000  francs  of  her  property. 
Little  more  need  be  said  of  the  character  of  As- 
true,  and  we  conclude  our  allusion  to  it  by  an  ex- 
pression from  Voltaire,  and  one  from  Grimm 
Voltaire  describes  him  as  ' '  miser,  debauchee,  and 
possessed  with  a  devil."  Grimm  says,  "  Astruc 
was  one  of  the  men  most  decried  in  Paris.  He 
was  regarded  as  a  rascal,  a  cheat,  vicious — in  a 
word,  as  a  very  dishonest  man."  Such  is  the  man 
who  originated  Ihe  ' '  documentary  hypothesis, "  of 
which  modern  criticism  has  made  so  much. 

In    1753    Astruc    published    his    work    entitled, 


52  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

"Conjectures  concerning  the  Original  Memoranda, 
which  it  appears  Moses  used  to  Compose  the  Book 
of  Genesis,  with  Remarks  which  Support  or  Throw 
Light  on  these  Conjectures. "  This  treatise  is  now 
a  very  rare  one,  for  the  reason  that  when  the 
French  Pariiament  was  about  to  make  inquiry  con- 
cerning it,  Astruc  bought  up  and  burned  every 
copy  he  could  purchase  or  procure.  It  was  is- 
sued in  Paris,  and  yet  by  its  title  page  it  professed 
to  have  been  published  in  Brussels,  so,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  was  sent  forth  with  a  falsehood  on  its 
face.  Why  it  was  written  by  a  man  in  Astruc's 
position  it  is  hard  to  understand.  He  professes 
a  desire  to  remove  difficulties  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  and  yet  his  work  played  at  once 
into  the  hands  of  unbelief.  Against  this  we 
are  not  aware  that  Astruc  ever  made  the  slight- 
est protest. 

In  his  Conjectures,  he  points  out  the  use  of  the 
two  names  applied  to  God  in  Genesis,  Jehovah  and 
Elohim,  and  alhides  to  what  he  thinks  needless 
repetitions,  anachronisms,  and  interpolations,  to- 
gether with  the  general  disorder  in  many  of  the 
narratives  in  this  book.  He  accounts  for  these 
things  by  supposing  that  Moses  was  merely  the 
human  compiler  of  the  treatise,  and  unconsciously 
blundered  in  his  work.  In  this  way  Moses  may 
have  been  honest,  but  he  was  evidently  ignorant, 
and  his  narratives  can  scarcely  be  trustworthy, 
much  less  inspired. 


ITS  HISTORY  CONTINUED.  53 

In  working  out  his  theory,  Astrnc  placed  the  text 
of  Genesis  in  three  main  columns,  which  he 
marked  A,  B,  and  C.  Then  various  fragments,  as 
he  thought,  of  the  literature,  which  could  Hot  be 
fitted  into  these  three  sections,  he  placed  in  ten 
additional  columns.  The  original  memoranda, 
Astruc  supposes,  came  partly  from  the  Jews  and 
partly  from  other  nations.  Moses,  he  assumes, 
just  put  these  together,  leaving  all  their  agreements 
and  differences  just  as  he  found  them.  Professing 
to  remove  difficulties,  it  is  evident  that  Astruc 
multiplied  them  a  thousandfold.  Voltaire  even, 
in  a  review  of  Astruc's  work,  says  of  it,  with  fine 
and  pointed  iron}^  that  ' '  it  redoubles  the  darkness 
he  sought  to  disperse." 

We  have  thus  dwelt  upon  the  author  and  origin 
of  the  famous  "documentary  hypothesis,"  in  such 
a  way  as  to  set  both  in  the  clear  light  of  history, 
and  to  show  that  it  was  invented  by  a  bad  man, 
not  really  in  the  interests  of  Christianity,  or  bibli- 
cal scholarship,  but  indirectly  at  least  to  supply 
weapons  against  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Christian  system.  We  also  set  forth  these 
things  concerning  the  origin  of  the  documentary 
hypothesis  in  order  to  put  immature  scholars  and 
youthful  biblical  students  on  their  guard  in  refer- 
ence to  the  admissions  which  are  often  made 
concerning  the  "documentary  hypothesis."  For 
ourselves  we  do  not  like  its  birth-place,  and  we 
cannot  grow  fond  of  its  company. 


54  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

We  have  already  stated  that  these  radical 
theories  did  not  appear  on  German  soil  till  about 
the  end  of  the  last  century.  When  the  idealistic 
pantheism  of  Schelling  and  Hegel  was  popularized 
by  Lessing  and  Goethe,  and  so  made  more  acces- 
sible for  the  common  people  both  in  prose  and 
verse,  about  the  close  of  the  last  century  and  the 
opening  of  this,  we  find  these  speculations  again 
making  their  appearance.  At  first,  here  and  there, 
in  a  timid  or  cautious  way,  attempts  were  made  to 
reproduce  the  post-exilian  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  ritual,  legislation,  and  literature  of  the  religion 
of  Israel.  These  radical  opinions  began  to  crystal- 
lize into  definite  form  early  in  the  present  century, 
and  in  the  hands  of  professedly  Christian  scholars. 
It  was  at  this  point  that  these  theories  succeeded 
in  scaling  the  walls  of  the  citadel  of  Christianity  ; 
or  rather  it  was  at  this  time  that  some  of  the  un- 
wise occupants  of  the  citadel,  who  should  have  been 
its  defenders,  opened  the  gates  to  let  these  radical 
anti-supernaturalistic  speculations  come  within  the 
walls. 

In  our  next  chapter  we  shall  proceed  to  give 
some  account  of  what  they  did  when  they  were  in- 
side. 


CHAPTER  III. 

ITS    HISTORY    CONTINUED. 

In  our  last  chapter  the  history  of  advanced  or 
rationaHstic  criticism  was  continued.  The  greater 
part  of  the  chapter  was  taken  up  with  a  brief  ac- 
count of  Astruc,  the  originator  of  the  "documen- 
tary hypothesis."  In  Astruc  we  still  have  the 
critical  speculation  without  the  Church.  At  the 
close  of  the  chapter,  it  was  indicated  that  just  about 
the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  the  gates 
were  opened  to  allow  these  theories  of  advanced 
criticism  to  enter  the  Church.  This  brings  us  to 
Germany,  and  calls  upon  us  to  give  some  account 
of  that  great  critical  und  rationalistic  movement 
which,  in  varying  forms,  has  continued  down  to  the 
present  time. 

In  the  year  1806,  De  Wette  published  a  treatise 
on  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  18 17  he 
issued  a  work  of  a  critical  and  historical  nature  on 
the  whole  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  In  these 
two  works  he  set  forth  the  view  that  we  must  look 
to  the  time  of  Josiah  for  the  book  of  Deuteronomy, 
and  that  the  history  set  forth  in  the  sacred  books 
must  be  reconstructed  in  order  to  get  at  the  true 
state  of  the  case.      He   broke  up   the    Pentateuch 

[55] 


56  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

into  a  series  of  parts,  differing  in  age,  origin,  and 
contents,  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  Le- 
vitical  ritual  came  into  existence  at  a  late  stage  in 
the  history  of  the  religious  life  of  the  people.  He 
also  denies  the  Davidic  origin  and  Messianic  nature 
of  many  of  the  Psalms,  and  although  he  does  not 
give  a  naturalistic  explanation  of  the  miracles,  he 
is  inclined  to  favor  the  legendary  nature  of  the 
narratives  concerning  the  miracles  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Here  we  find  the  favorite  theory  of  cer- 
tain modern  schools  of  criticism  in  its  main  outlines 
advocated  by  De  Wette,  who  was  largely  domi- 
nated, though  not  entirely  controlled,  by  the 
thoroughly  rationalistic  methods  and  spirit  of 
Paulus. 

Some  time  later,  about  the  year  1830,  two  writ- 
ers, both  of  them  exponents  of  the  philosophy  of 
Hegel,  presented  even  more  radical  and  thorough- 
going views.  Their  names  are  Vatke  and  Leopold 
George.  They  asserted  without  reserve  that  the 
whole  Mosaic  ritual  and  legislation  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch  was  post-Mosaic,  and  the  greater  part  of 
it,  also,  post-prophetic.  They  further  held  that 
Deuteronomy  was  written  about  the  time  of  the 
Exile,  and  that  it  is  the  oldest,  not  the  latest  book 
of  the  Mosaic  law.  The  other  four  books,  Genesis, 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  were  written  after 
Deuteronomy,  and  so  subsequently  to  the  Exile. 
These  books,  they  further  asserted,  were  to  be  re- 
garded as  almost  entirely  mythical  in  their  nature. 


ITS  HISTORY  CONTINUED.  57 

Vatke  was  one  of  the  early  writers  who  developed 
what  came  in  later  times  to  be  known  as  the 
"  Wellhausen  Theory"  of  the  Old  Testament.  He 
expressly  maintained  that  the  mature  ritual  and  sac- 
rificial S3^stem  of  the  Pentateuch  was  post-exilic, 
and  his  mythical  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
the  precursors  of  Strauss' s  mythical  explanation  of 
the  New  Testament  narratives.  Throughout  we 
clearly  see  the  rationalistic  spirit  and  attitude  in 
those  scholars  within  the  Church  who  first  gave  ex- 
pression to  those  radical  theories  now  under  review. 
In  the  year  1833  we  come  to  an  important  era  in 
the  progress  of  advanced  critical  speculation.  In 
that  year  Edward  Reuss,  of  Strasbourg,  published 
a  treatise  in  which  the  critical  theory  was  presented 
in  a  much  more  elaborated  form.  He  reproduced 
the  main  points  in  Spinoza's  Ezra  hypothesis,  and 
followed  up  the  speculations  of  De  Wette  and  Vatke. 
In  this  way  he  gave  much  more  definite  outline  to 
the  theory  of  the  later  origin  of  the  ritual,  legisla- 
lation,  and  literature  involved  in  the  religion  of 
Israel.  In  Reuss  we  have,  indeed,  the  distinct 
commencement  of  those  definite  theories,  which,  in 
quite  recent  times,  have  developed  into  the  main 
positions  maintained  by  advanced,  or  radical,  Higher 
Criticism  on  the  Old  Testament  field.  The  work 
of  Reuss  is  full  of  interest  on  this  account.  He 
also  claims  to  have  really  preceded  Vatke  and 
George  in  reaching  his  conclusions,  so  that  it  is  not 
easy  to  decide  to  whom  the  honor  of  priority  really 


58  RADICAL   CRITICISM. 

belongs.  He  gives  prominence  to  the  historical 
side  of  his  critical  work,  and  he  opposed  with  vigor 
and  success,  in  later  years,  the  views  of  the  Tubin- 
gen school. 

By  the  year  1848  we  find  these  general  critical 
views  adopted  by  many  scholars  in  Germany.  It 
would  seem  that  by  degrees,  during  the  period  from 
1833  to  1848,  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  the  early  rise  in  the  days  of  the  Exodus 
of  mature  Mosaism,  were  rejected  by  the  majority 
of  critics.  Only  a  few  here  and  there  held  consist- 
ently by  the  old  orthodox  view,  and  the  Scripture 
narratives  of  both  Old  and  New  Testaments  were 
handled  with  a  freedom  that  paid  scanty  regard  to 
their  divine  origin  and  inspiration. 

The  older  rationalism,  which  rested  largely  on 
the  deistic  philosoph}'  of  the  relation  of  God  to  his 
works,  gradually  gave  place  to  the  idealistic  pan- 
theism of  the  Hegelian  philosophy.  The  result  of 
this  was  that  in  the  field  of  biblical  criticism  we  do 
not  hear  so  much  of  the  naturalistic  attempts  to 
explain  the  miracles  and  other  phases  of  the  super- 
natural. We  find  the  effort  now  to  be  rather  in  the 
direction  of  harmonizing  the  Scripture  narratives 
with,  or  reconstructing  them  if  necessary,  according 
to,  the  essential  principles  of  the  idealistic  evolution 
of  the  system  of  Hegel.  According  to  this  system, 
as  with  every  phase  of  pantheism,  everything  must 
be  regarded  as  either  natural  or  supernatural;  con- 
sequently the  distinction  between  the  two  is  virtually 


ITS  HISTORY  CONTINUED.  59 

obliterated.  This  being  done,  the  entire  Scripture 
narratives,  with  the  system  of  rehgion  they  set  forth, 
must  be  explained  in  accordance  with  this  philo- 
sophical standpoint.  If  the  contents  of  the  narra- 
tives, as  they  stand,  do  not  agree  with  the  order 
thus  rendered  necessary,  reconstruction  must  be 
made,  and  from  this  standpoint  the  critic  enters  on 
his  task.  Up  to  this  point  we  have  seen  some  of 
the  results  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament. 

It  soon  became  evident,  however,  that  a  similar 
mode  of  criticism  might  be  applied  to  the  Gospel 
narratives  which  set  forth  the  life  of  Christ.  It 
was  very  natural  to  conclude  that  if  the  critical 
procedure  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament  led  to 
a  rejection  of  the  so-called  traditional  views  regard- 
ing it,  the  next  logical  step  to  take  was  to  apply 
the  same  methods  to  Christ  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment narratives.  Accordingly,  in  the  year  1835, 
just  about  the  time  that  Vatke  and  Reuss  revived 
Spinoza's  Ezra  hypothesis,  and  suggested  the  myth- 
ical origin  of  large  parts  of  the  first  four  books  of 
Moses,  we  find  that  Strauss  published  his  ' '  Leben 
Jesu."  This  "  Life  of  Christ  "  is  in  many  respects  a 
bold  and  remarkable  book,  and  its  appearance  pro- 
duced an  immense  sensation  in  the  world  of  theo- 
logical learning.  It  soon  called  forth  vigorous 
replies  from  both  the  dogmatic  and  historical  stand- 
points. Among  the  best  of  these  are  Dorner's 
"Person  of  Christ,"  and  Neander's  "Life  of 
Christ."      Later  writers  have  dealt  with  the  theory 


60  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

of  Strauss  at  length,  and  effectively  exploded  the 
whole  speculation.  Christlieb's  critique  of  Strauss 
is  also  very  line. 

No  attempt  need  be  made  here  to  expound  and 
criticise  the  mythical  hypothesis  which  Strauss  set 
forth  to  explain  the  Gospel  narratives.  It  is  vir- 
tually an  application  of  Vatke's  mythical  views  of 
the  Old  Testament  to  the  Gospel  history  of  the 
New.  On  the  philosophical  side,  Strauss  is  allied 
with  the  idealistic  pantheism  of  Hegel,  whose  disci- 
ple the  great  destructive  critic  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament was.  This  theory  does  not  exert  much 
influence  at  the  present  day,  nor  has  it  many  ad- 
herents, still  in  current  literature  we  sometimes 
see  the  spirit  of  the  mythical  theory  floating  about. 
Moreover,  we  see  in  the  absurd  and  unhistorical 
nature  of  this  theory  how  far  unsound  modes  of 
Higher  Criticism  will  lead,  if  once  we  are  com- 
mitted to  them.  The  theory  itself  may  be  a 
mummy  neatly  embalmed,  but  its  ghost,  we  fear, 
still  lives.      At  this  point  this  chapter  must  close. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ITS    HISTORY    CONTINUED. 

The  preceding  chapter  continued  the  history  of 
the  radical  movement  of  Higher  Criticism.  The 
views  and  theories  of  De  Wette,  Vatke,  George,  and 
Reuss  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  Strauss  in  the 
New  Testament  field  were  briefly  sketched.  Dur- 
ing the  period  of  about  thirty  years  in  Vv^hich  these 
writers  set  forth  their  theories,  the  tendency  was 
toward  a  purely  rational  explanation  of  the  religion 
and  literature  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  In  this 
tendency  the  mythical  feature  was  a  very  promi- 
nent one  in  the  hands  of  Vatke  for  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  Strauss  for  the  New.  Above  all,  we 
cannot  fail  to  notice  that  these  reconstructive  the- 
ories usually  went  hand  in  hand  with  a  denial  of 
the  supernatural  element  in  the  Scriptures. 

This  chapter  continues  the  history,  and  will  bring 
it  forward  to  the  present  generation.  In  the  year 
1 847  another  important  stage  was  reached  in  the 
development  of  these  critical  theories.  In  that 
year  F.  C.  Baur,  of  Tubingen,  published  a  treatise 
in  which  he  elaborated  some  peculiar  critical  views 
which  soon  came  to  be  known  as  those  of  the 
Tubingen  school.      Baur  was  a  Hegelian  in  philoso- 

[61] 


62  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

phy,  and  applied  the  dialectic  of  that  philosophy  to 
explain,  in  a  purely  natural  way,  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  the  beginning  of  Christianity.  The  re- 
sult was  the  production  of  the  ' '  Tendency  Theory," 
which  is  really  based  on  Hegel's  ' '  Philosophy  of 
History." 

According  to  the  "Tendency  Theory"  advocated 
by  Baur,  there  were  several  distinct  tendencies  of 
doctrinal  view  in  the  New  Testament  times.  Two 
at  least  are  prominent,  and  a  third  may  be  ob- 
served. The  two  chief  tendencies  are  the  Pauline 
and  the  Petrine,  while  the  Johannine  is  not  so  dis- 
tinct. By  the  application  of  Hegel's  logical  princi- 
ples to  these  supposed  early  natural  tendencies,  the 
antithesis  between  them  was  resolved  in  a  higher 
synthesis  by  which,  in  a  purely  natural  way,  the 
divergent  views  were  harmonized.  The  result  was 
an  onward  step  in  the  growth  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem in  its  early  stages. 

Later  on  in  the  Ebionitic  and  Gnostic  heresies 
we  have,  as  Baur  thinks,  renewed  antitheses  which 
again  are  to  be  resolved  in  another  and  a  higher 
synthesis.  In  this  way,  by  a  mediating  process  of 
a  logical  nature,  the  successive  antitheses  were  re- 
solved in  successive  syntheses,  and  in  the  end, 
about  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  catholic 
or  complete  Christianity  was  the  result.  In  this 
way  the  facts  of  history  are  made  to  fit  the  logical 
conditions  of  a  peculiar  and  subtle  philosophical 
theory.      The  supernatural  is  eliminated,   and   the 


ITS  HISTORY  CONTINUED.  G3 

most  we  can  say  concerning  early  Christianity  is 
that  it  was  the  product  of  a  kind  of  transcendental 
logic  working  in  the  religious  history  of  the  apostolic 
age. 

Then  in  harmony  with  this  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  religion  of  New  Testament  times  the  production 
of  the  different  books  of  Scripture  is  accounted  for. 
Each  book,  whether  Gospel  narrative  or  doctrinal 
epistle,  was  written  to  support  one  or  other  of 
these  "tendencies,"  or  to  mediate  between  opposing 
tendencies.  Much  diversity  of  view  exists  among 
the  advocates  of  this  theory  in  regard  to  the  author- 
ship and  date  of  the  several  books.  In  general,  the 
Gospels  are  supposed  to  have  been  written  from  1 30 
to  170  A.  D. ,  and  the  Epistles  are  arranged  in  a  most 
arbitrary  way,  as  Pauline,  Petrine,  and  Mediative, 
as  the  case  may  seem  to  require,  according  to  the 
judgment  of  the  critic.  One  would  almost  suppose 
that  Baur  and  his  associates  had  been  present  when 
Christianity  was  passing  through  its  early  stages, 
and  that  they  had  been  looking  over  the  shoulders 
of  the  sacred  writers  as  they  were  penning  their 
narratives. 

Our  purpose  is  not  to  criticise  this  theory  at 
length.  It  has  fallen  entirely  into  decay;  or  per- 
haps it  would  be  better  to  say  that  it  has  gone  quite 
out  of  fashion,  for  there  seem  to  be  fashions  in 
criticisms  as  well  as  in  bonnets  and  coats.  Hilgen- 
feld  was  for  many  years,  almost  the  only  repre- 
sentative of  the  tendency  theory.     Recently,  how- 


64  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

ever,  Pfleiderer  of  Berlin  has  been  making  some 
efforts  to  rehabilitate  Baur's  theory,  and  to  secure 
for  it  a  bearing  through  the  Gijford  Lectures  in 
Scotland. 

It  is  worth  while  noting  the  fact  that  the  theories 
of  Strauss  and  Baur  are  often  classed  together,  as 
if  they  were  substantially  alike  in  their  essential 
principles.  Strauss  and  Renan  are  in  much  closer 
affinity  than  Strauss  and  Baur.  The  mythical  and 
legendary  are  more  akin  than  are  the  mythical  and 
tendency  theories.  -The  root  idea  in  the  theory  of 
Strauss,  is  that  of  the  viytliiis  naturally  expanding; 
in  the  legendary  scheme  of  Renan,  it  is  an  accre- 
tion gathering  about  a  basis  of  fact  ;  and  in  the 
tendency  theory  of  Baur,  it  is  a  necessary  logical 
process  bringing  forth  its  historical  product  in  early 
Christianity  and  its  literature.  In  the  case  of  the 
mythical  theory,  the  literature  is  an  unconscious 
growth  ;  and  in  that  of  the  tendency  scheme,  it  is 
an  intentional  product.  With  Strauss,  the  several 
books  mark  the  form  that  the  luytJiits  had  reached, 
while  with  Ba  ir  they  were  written  to  support  the 
tejideneics  aire;  dy  existirg. 

The  views  of  Baur  have  been  vigorously  criticised, 
and  successfully  refuted  by  writers  on  the  Continent 
and  in  Britain,  and  they  do  not  meet  with  much 
favor  at  the  present  day.  In  this  way  rationalistic 
Higher  Criticism,  within  Christianity  itself,  was 
compelled  to  confess  failure  in  another  attempt  to 
account  for  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament  on 


ITS  HISTORY   CONTINUED.  Go 

the  basis  of  pure  rationalism.  Moreover,  this  work 
of  refutation  greatly  confirmed  the  strictly  historical 
views  of  the  Christ  of  history.  Just  as  the  same 
blast  which  lays  prostrate  the  loosely  rooted  poplar 
tree  only  fixes  more  firmly  the  roots  of  the  sturdy 
oak,  so  the  refutation  of  these  baseless  theories  of 
Higher  Criticism  confirms  the  true  historical  view 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures  and  their  religious  system. 

During  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  there  are 
several  names  which  must  have  a  place,  even  in  a 
brief  sketch  like  this.  At  the  same  time  a  host  of 
writers  who  have  supported  advanced  critical  theo- 
ries cannot  have  even  their  names  mentioned  in 
the  space  at  our  disposal.  There  are  four  chief 
names  to  be  set  down  as  prominent  in  recent 
developments  in  the  critical  school  up  to  about  the 
year  1880.  These  are  Graf,  Ivuenen,  Wellhausen, 
and  Robertson  Smith. 

Graf  was  a  pupil  of  Reuss,  the  Strasburg  critic. 
In  i860  he  propounded  what  may  be  called  the 
negative  critical  theory  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
with  him  we  find  advanced  rationalistic  criticism 
back  on  the  territory  of  the  Old  Testament  again. 
This  general  theory,  usually  known  as  ' '  Graf's 
Theory,"  marks  a  still  more  definite  stage  in  the 
progress  of  critical  speculation.  Others  who  fol- 
lowed him  gave  the  theory  much  more  complete 
and  detailed  form,  still  the  essential  outlines  of 
those  critical  theories,  so  popular  in  certain  quar- 
ters at  the  present  day,  were  sketched  by  Graf. 
5 


66  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

As  this  general  theory  will  be  stated  more  fully  in 
subsequent  articles,  we  need  not  add  anything 
further  in  the  historical  statement  we  are  now 
making  than  to  mention  this  fact. 

The  second  name  above  mentioned  is  that  of 
Kuenen  of  Leyden.  Kuenen  is  often  set  down  as  a 
German,  but  he  is  a  Hollander  and  wrote  in  Dutch. 
In  1865  he  comipleted  the  publication  of  an  ex- 
tended work  of  a  critical  and  historical  nature 
concerning  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  1882  he 
issued  another  treatise  in  which  he  applied  the  ad- 
vanced higher  critical  methods  to  the  books  of 
Moses  and  the  history  of  Israel.  Kuenen  adopted 
substantially  the  leading  outlines  of  Graf's  theory, 
and  with  great  wealth  of  learning  and  boldness  of 
speculation  he  expounded  it  more  fully,  giving  it 
much  more  detailed  completeness  of  structure.  He 
denied  the  reality  of  the  supernatural  in  the  Script- 
ures, and  thereby  set  aside  their  inspiration.  Kue- 
nen is  certainly  an  able  and  scholarly  writer,  from 
a  certain  point  of  view,  and  in  some  respects  his  is 
the  most  influential  hand  that  has  aided  in  giving 
form  to  the  critical  theory. 

The  next  writer  to  be  mentioned  is  Wellhausen, 
—  of  Greifswald,  till  1882.  In  1878  he  published 
his  "  History  of  Israel,"  which  has  had  an  extensive 
circulation.  In  this  treatise  he  gave  the  Grafian 
hypothesis  still  greater  completeness,  and  presented 
it  in  the  general  form  in  which  it  is  now  current 
among  rationalistic  critics.     In  this  complete  form 


/ 


ITS  HISTORY  CONTINUED.  67 

it  may  be  known  as  the  Graf-Wellhausen  Theory  of 
the  history  of  Israel,  and  of  the  hterature  and  rehg- 
ious  system  found  in  the  Old  Testament. 

In  general  this  theory  maintains  that  the  com- 
plete Mosaic  ritual  and  legislation  originated  after 
the  period  of  the  prophets,  and  that  the  Pentateuch 
in  its  present  form  was  compiled  after  the  Exile. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  details  here,  as 
future  chapters  will  give  full  exposition  of  this 
theory. 

We  reserve  what  we  have  to  say  concerning  Rob- 
ertson Smith,  for  the  next  chapter.  In  this  way 
we  will  make  the  transition  from  Germany  to  Brit- 
ain, and  find  the  advanced  theories  of  Historical 
or  Higher  Criticism  passing  from  Teutonic  to  Anglo- 
Saxon  circles.  How  they  have  flourished  there  we 
shall  also  see  in  the  next  chapter,  and  with  that 
chapter  the  history  of  the  radical  reconstructive 
movement  will  conclude. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ITS    HISTORY    CONCLUDED. 

The  last  chapter  dealt  with  the  history  of  ration- 
alistic criticism  during  a  period  of  about  thirty 
years,  from  1847  to  1878.  The  chief  names  which 
appeared  during  this  period,  were  Baur,  Graf, 
Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen.  Baur's  Tendency  the- 
ory of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  origin  of 
Christianity  in  a  purely  natural  way  was  described, 
and  the  part  which  the  other  three  authors  played 
in  shaping  modern  critical  theories  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament was  briefly  indicated. 

At  the  close  of  the  chapter,  allusion  was  made  to 
Robertson  Smith,  and  to  the  fact  that  with  him  the 
radical  speculations  passed  from  Germany  to  Brit- 
ain, and  so  from  Teutonic  to  Anglo-Saxon  circles. 
At  this  point  we  take  up  the  history  and  hope  to 
complete  it  in  this  chapter. 

Robertson  Smith  was  formerly  a  professor  in  the 
Free  Church  College  at  Aberdeen,  Scotland.  He 
early  showed  aptitude  for  linguistic  studies,  and 
spent  some  time  as  a  student  in  Germany  at  Bonn 
and  Gottingcn.  After  teaching  as  assistant  in 
physics  in  Edinburgh  University  for  two  years,  he 
became  professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Free  Church 
[68] 


ITS  HISTORY   CONCLUDED.  69 

College  at  Aberdeen  in  1870.  In  1881  he  was 
removed  from  his  Chair  by  the  Assembly,  on  ac- 
count of  his  heretical  teaching  upon  points  involved 
in  the  radical  critical  theories  of  the  Graf-Well- 
hausen  School.  In  1883  he  went  to  Cambridge 
University  as  professor  of  Arabic,  and  since  1886, 
he  has  been  librarian  of  that  University/  Soon 
after  the  General  Assembly  removed  him  from  his 
Chair  at  Aberdeen,  he  became  editor  of  the  ninth 
edition  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  and  the 
impress  of  his  views  is  seen  in  many  of  the  articles 
on  biblical  subjects  in  this  great  work.  To  say  the 
least,  many  of  these  articles  are  one-sided,  and  by 
no  means  do  justice  to  conservative  opinions  in 
regard  to  critical  questions.  Indeed,  some  of  these 
articles  seem  to  be  written  in  the  interests  of  radi- 
cal criticism,  and  to  entirely  ignore  the  conservative 
views. 

Smith's  articles  in  the  Britannica,  on  ' '  The 
Bible,"  and  on  "The  Hebrew  Literature,"  first  at- 
tracted attention.  Then  his  books  on  "The 
Prophets  of  Israel,"  and  on  "  The  Old  Testament 
in  the  Jewish  Church,"  set  forth  his  views  at 
length,  subsequent  to  his  removal  from  his  Chair 
at  Aberdeen,  though  the  lectures  contained  in  the 
latter  book  were  delivered  during  the  period  that 
his  case  was  before  the  Assembly.  On  the  ground 
of  the  views  expressed  in  the  articles  above  named, 

1  Since  this  was  written,  Dr.  Smith  has  died  at  the  early  age  of 
forty-nine  years. 


70  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

and  in  other  ways,  he  was  charged  with  heresy, 
and  after  a  heated  controversy  in  which  he  made 
a  vigorous  and  able  defense,  he  was  removed  from 
his  Chair. 

All  that  need  be  said  in  this  historical  sketch 
regarding  Smith's  writings,  is,  that  there  is  really 
little  new  in  them.  He  has  evidently  a  bright 
mind,  is  a  brilliant  scholar  in  certain  lines,  and  is 
master  of  a  splendid  style  of  writing.  It  cannot  be 
said  that  his  scholarship  is  either  broad,  accurate,  or 
well  balanced  ;  and  in  the  perusal  of  his  writings  the 
reader  is  often  impressed  with  the  fact  that  general 
conclusions  are  drawn  from  slender  premises,  and 
sweeping  inductions  made  from  a  few  isolated  facts. 
What  Smith  has  done  may  not  unfairly  be  called  a 
work  of  importation.  He  taught  German  rational- 
istic criticism  how  to  speak  the  English  tongue.  In 
other  words,  he  has  simply  put  into  good  English 
dress  the  main  outlines  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen 
hypothesis  concerning  the  religion  and  literature  of 
Israel,  slightly  modifying  the  style  of  the  clothes  to 
suit  the  Anglo-Saxon  wearer.  At  the  same  time 
he  endeavored  to  hold  by  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion, while  following  the  methods  and  adopting  the 
general  conclusions  of  that  school  of  criticism  which 
sets  aside  the  reality  of  the  supernatural  and  which 
thereby  sweeps  overboard  all  semblance  of  inspira- 
tion in  the  Scriptures.  Perhaps  the  masters  were 
more  consistent  than  their  Scotch  pupil,  even 
though  the  pupil  was  more  reverent  than  his  Teu- 


ITS  HISTORY  CONCLUDED.  71 

tonic  masters.  We  mention  these  things  chiefly 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  think  that  there  is 
profound  originality  in  the  writings  of  the  Eng- 
hsh-speaking  higher  critics.  We  are  perhaps  not 
going  too  far  when  we  say  that  their  main  busi- 
ness is  importation,  rather  than  production  ;  and,  in 
some  cases,  if  we  make  close  inspection  of  the  stock 
in  trade,  we  may  discover  that  most  of  it  is  sec- 
ond-hand goods.  An  English-speaking  professor, 
decked  out  in  the  well-worn  study  gown  of  his  Ger- 
man preceptor,  is  scarcely  an  edifying  spectacle  in 
those  circles  of  biblical  scholarship  which  claim 
so  much  originality. 

This  virtually  brings  our  historical  sketch  down 
to  our  own  day,  and  we  conclude  it  with  some  brief 
descriptive  allusions  to  the  present  situation  in  re- 
gard to  the  advanced  school  of  criticism.  So  far 
as  Germany  is  concerned,  little  need  be  said.  Judg- 
ing from  statements  that  have  lately  come  to  us  from 
various  quarters  and  which  may  be  relied  on,  there 
seems  to  be  a  tendency  in  the  fatherland  to  return 
to  more  conservative  ground  in  regard  to  the  liter- 
ary and  critical  questions  round  which  the  fires  of 
criticism  have  been  burning  so  fiercely  for  the  past 
forty  years.  While  there  is  no  decided  reaction 
against  the  Graf-Wellhausen  position,  still  some  of 
its  boldest  features  are  modified  in  the  literature  at 
present  coming  from  that  quarter,  and  several  in- 
fluential critics  are  in  open  revolt  against  the  meth- 
ods of  this  reigning  school  of  criticism. 


72  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

After  the  controversy  in  Robertson  Smith's  case 
subsided,  mutterings  of  coming  debate  began  to  be 
heard  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  Indeed,  so 
early  as  1879,  Professor  Toy,  of  the  Southern  Bap- 
tist Theological  Seminary  announced  opinions  in 
regard  to  some  critical  questions  which  speedily  led 
to  his  withdrawal  from  that  institution.  Since 
1880,  he  has  been  professor  of  Hebrew  at  Harvard 
University,  and  in  1884  published  a  book  on  "The 
History  of  the  Religion  of  Israel,"  which  showed 
that  he  was  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the  advanced 
methods  and  results  of  radical  criticism,  and  had, 
indeed,  already  drawn  from  the  writings  of  the 
Germans  to  a  considerable  extent. 

A  few  years  later  the  center  of  interest  was  re- 
moved to  Union  Seminary,  New  York,  and  all  our 
readers  are  familiar  with  the  proceedings  in  the 
case  of  Professor  Briggs,  since  the  delivery  of  his 
Inaugural  Address  in  1891.  For  some  time  before, 
it  had  been  supposed  that  Professor  Briggs  was 
teaching  some  advanced  views,  not  unlike  those 
prevalent  in  Germany  and  set  forth  by  the  Graf- 
Wellhausen  school.  During  the  two  )-ears  which 
followed  the  delivery  of  his  famous  address  till  he 
was  suspended  from  the  ministry  of  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church,  it  became  more  and  more  apparent  that 
Professor  Briggs  was  on  radical  ground.  He  in- 
sisted that  he  held  fast  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  but  the  principles  and  methods  to 
which  he  had  committed  himself  made  it  difftcult,  if 


ITS  HISTORY   CONCLUDED.  73 

not  impossible,  for  him  to  hold  a  consistent  doctrine 
of  inspiration  in  harmony  with  his  critical  methods 
and  conclusions. 

Recrossing  the  Atlantic,  we  find  that  in  recent 
years,  the  quiet  retreats  of  scholastic  leisure  at 
Oxford,  have  been  invaded  by  radical  opinions  in 
regard  to  biblical  criticism.  The  two  names  con- 
nected with  this  invasion  are  Professors  Driver  and 
Cheyne.  Driver  has  been  professor  of  Hebrew 
since  1882,  and  Cheyne,  professor  of  Biblical  Inter- 
pretation since  1885.  Various  publications  soon 
showed  the  trend  of  Driver's  views,  till  his  book  on 
' '  The  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testament,"  appeared  two  years  ago.  In  this  book 
he  is  committed  to  a  modified  form  of  the  Well- 
hausen  theory,  and  a  hasty  perusal  of  this  treatise 
shows  how  extensively  Driver  has  been  engaged  in 
the  business  of  importation  of  critical  views  from 
Germany,  where  the  manufacture  of  theories  is  car- 
ried on  so  extensively.  It  would  seem  that  Cheyne 
was  unwilling  that  his  fellow-professor  should  have 
all  the  fame  of  original  critical  inventions,  and  so 
he  has  recently  published  several  articles  in  which 
he  takes  even  more  radical  views  than  Driver,  espe- 
cially in  regard  to  the  Psalms. 

At  present,  in  Britain  many  other  scholars  of  les- 
ser note  are  adopting  these  views,  but  our  space 
forbids  further  description.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
there  seems  to  be  a  craze,  almost,  in  regard  to  these 
views,  so  that  in  certain  quarters  it  is  exceedingly 


74  RADICAL    ClUTTCrSM. 

out  of  the  fashion  to  avow  adherence  to  ths  con- 
servative position  in  regard  to  the  literature  and 
rehgion  of  the  Scriptures,  especially  of  that  set 
forth  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  a  comfort  to 
remember  that  fashions  change  frequently. 

The  last  slight  breeze  in  the  critical  field  is 
associated  with  the  name  of  President  Harper,  of 
Chicago  University.  He  has,  it  seems,  in  a  course 
of  recent  lectures,  been  stating  some  advanced 
views  in  regard  to  the  early  narratives  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Whether  this  is  to  be  accounted  for 
as  a  result  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  or  arises 
from  an  unconscious  ambition  to  have  Chicago  in 
the  van,  or  springs  from  the  effort  of  another  biblical 
critic  to  be  original,  we  are  not  prepared  to  say. 
Perhaps  the  truth  is  that  Harper  has  unconsciously 
gone  into  the  importation  business  also;  and,  if  we 
are  not  greatly  mistaken,  some  of  the  materials 
which  he  has  been  dressing  up  for  the  itching  ears  of 
his  Chicago  auditors  may  be  discovered  in  the  writ- 
ings of  radical  or  rationalistic  critics.  It  is  onl}-  fair 
to  add  that  Harper  would  not  allow  us  to  classify 
him  with  the  Wellhausen  school.  He  has  recently 
criticised  that  school,  so  that  we  are  glad  to  see 
signs  of  a  hopeful  reaction  in  his  case. 

We  close  this  chapter,  and  with  it  our  historical 
sketch,  with  a  very  brief  reference  to  some  names 
on  the  conservative  side.  In  Germany,  though 
radical  (^pinions  in  criticism  have  had  great  promi- 


ITS  HISTORY  CONCLUDED.  75 

nence  during  the  past  fifty  years,  yet  the  radical 
critics  by  no  means  have  had  things  all  their  own 
way.  Ranke  refuted  in  a  thorough  manner  that 
phase  of  radical  theory  known  as  the  fragmentary 
hypothesis,  and  Kurtz  dealt  deadly  blows  against  the 
supplementary  form  of  the  hypothesis.  Hcngsten- 
berg  along  several  lines  provides  much  mcLterial  for 
the  vindication  of  the  conservative  side  in  the  con- 
troversy. Havernick,  Urechsler,  Bachmann,  Kiel, 
and  Delitzsch  have  all  more  or  less  decidedly  com- 
batted  the  radical  views.  And  at  the  present  day 
Konig,  and  especially  Klostermann,  are  making  such 
vigorous  attacks  upon  the  Wellhausen  theory  that 
unless  som.e  one  comes  speedily  to  the  rescue  that 
critical  stronghold  will  be  captured  or  destroyed. 
Other  names  of  prominence  in  Germany  on  the 
conservative  side  might  be  mentioned  did  space 
permit.  Professor  Watts,  of  Belfast,  has  been  a 
strong  opponent  of  the  advanced  views  in  Britain, 
and  Professor  W.  H.  Green,  of  Princeton,  has  done 
noble  service  on  the  conservative  side,  in  this 
country.  Professors  Osgood,  Bissell,  and  Warfield, 
with  a  host  of  others,  have,  in  a  thoroughly  scholarly 
way,  rebutted  the  radical  views.  Professor  Robert- 
son, of  Glasgow,  in  his  "Early  Religion  of  Israel," 
has  given  a  book  which  must  be  answered  by  the 
radicals  before  they  can  continue  their  onward  wa}'. 
The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Reviezv  for  several 
years   has   rendered    splendid    service   in    guiding 


76  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

devout  scholarship  into  safe  Hnes,  and  in  leading 
it  to  sound  conclusions.  But  we  must  conclude 
history  and  description,  and  in  the  next  chapter 
begin  our  work  in  the  "Exposition  of  Advanced 
Criticism. " 


PART  III. 

EXPOSITION  OF  ADVANCED  HIGHER 
CRITICISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

With  the  last  chapter,  the  outhne  of  the  history 
of  advanced  Higher  Criticism  which  our  hmits  per- 
mitted us  to  give,  was  completed.  During  the 
course  of  the  history,  at  least  one  striking  fact  very 
clearly  emerged.  Even  the  brief  sketch  we  were 
able  to  give  shows  that  what  now  claims  to  be  the 
only  sound,  scientific,  and  scholarly  school  of  Higher 
Criticism  within  the  Christian  Church  began  its 
career  without  the  Church,  and  was  often  used  as 
a  v/eapon  against  the  Christian  system.  It  was 
born  in  the  world  outside  the  Church,  and  has  only 
been  adopted  into  the  Christian  household  in  mod- 
ern times.  The  three  great  names  already  men- 
tioned as  having  much  to  do  with  the  origin  of 
advanced  theories  and  methods  —  Porphyry,  Spi- 
noza, and  Astruc  —  were  all  without  the  Church, 
and  in  some  cases  they  were  the  bitter  foes  of 
Christianity. 

This  is  a  fact  which  does  not  seem  always  to  be 
fully  considered  by  some  reverent  critics  who  have 
a  degree  of  sympathy  with  the  new  methods  and 
principles  of  advanced  criticism.  It  remains  to 
be  seen  how  this   adopted  worldling,    which  some 

[79] 


80  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Christian  scholars  have  brought  into  the  household 
of  faith,  will,  in  the  course  of  time,  treat  its  foster 
parents.  It  may  be  that  it  will  prove  itself  to  be 
exceedingly  unfilial,  and  do  much  harm  to,  even  as 
it  has  already  caused  not  a  little  trouble  in,  the 
household.  We  should  make  sure  that  the  little 
pagan  is  not  only  civilized,  but  Christianized,  be- 
fore we  allow  it  to  have  a  place  within  the  family 
circle  of  Christianity. 

Let  it  be  kept  constantly  in  mind,  therefore, 
that  the  methods  and  theories  advocated  by  mod- 
ern Higher  Criticism  originated  on  non-Christian 
soil,  were  brought  into  the  Church  by  rationalistic 
hands  during  the  eighteenth  century,  and  are,  per- 
haps, all  the  more  dangerous  now  that  they  are 
within  the  sacred  inclosure.  For  those  who  desire 
to  retain  supernatural  views  of  Christianity,  it  must 
be  an  awkward,  and  perhaps  a  dangerous  thing  to 
attempt  to  square  these  critical  theories  with  the 
supernaturalism  implied  in  the  Christian  system. 
This  critical  speculation  may  prove  a  viper  which 
Christianity  takes  into  her  bosom,  and  which  in 
turn  may  inflict  serious  injury  upon,  if  it  does  not 
endanger  the  life  of,  the  system. 

When  continental  critics  deny  the  reality  of  the 
supernatural  in  Christianity  and  set  aside  the  in- 
spiration of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  then  proceed, 
in  a  consistent  way,  with  their  work  of  destructive 
criticism,  it  cannot  but  be  a  bold  if  not  a  foolhardy 
venture  for  British  or  American  critics  to  pursue  the 


PRELIMINARY.  81 

methods  and  adopt  the  theories  of  these  critics, 
and  at  the  same  time  hope  to  retain  intact  the  high 
claims  which  Christianity  makes  to  be  unique  and 
divine.  Their  aims  may  be  honest  and  their  pur- 
pose resolute,  yet  we  are  much  afraid  that  the  An- 
glo-Saxon reproducers  of  Teutonic  critical  theories 
will  find  themselves  driven  to  minimize  the  super- 
natural, and  perhaps  repudiate  it  altogether. 

Let  this  danger  be  fully  considered  by  those  who 
feel  drawn  to  these  speculations.  There  is  a  fas- 
cination about  them  which  tends  to  dazzle  the  eyes 
of  an  inquiring  and  venturesome  mind,  but  great 
care  should  be  taken  to  prevent  these  novel  theories 
from  perverting  sound  judgment  in  questions  of 
criticism,  which,  to  a  large  extent,  must  always  be 
matters  of  fact.  What  is  needed  is  the  exercise  of 
sober  caution  on  the  part  of  those  who  deal  with 
these  questions,  lest  some  who  are  always  anxious 
to  hear  some  new  theory  may  be  carried  away  by 
baseless  though  beautiful  theories. 

It  may  take  several  generations  to  mature  among 
us  the  serious  results  which  we  fear  must  follow 
the  adoption  of  these  advanced  critical  views  of 
the  literature  and  religion  of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
Many  things  during  the  last  ten  years  constrain  us 
to  believe  that  the  general  adoption  of  the  critical 
theories,  now  so  popular  in  certain  circles,  by  Eng- 
lish-speaking critics  and  biblical  scholars,  would,  by 
the  inexorable  logic  of  events,  open  wide  the  gate 
for  a  deluge  of  rationalism  to  flow  through  the 
6 


82  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Church,  which  would  make  shipwreck  of  Christian- 
ity as  a  supernatural  system  of  religion. 

On  the  other  hand,  while  we  say  all  this,  we  wish 
it  to  be  most  distinctly  understood  that  we  are  not 
averse  to,  nor  do  we  in  any  way  oppose  or  discour- 
age the  most  thorough  and  scholarly  study  of  ev- 
erything connected  with  the  Christian  system.  We 
invite  the  deep  thinker  to  inspect  its  philosophical 
foundations  ;  we  ask  the  careful  student  of  nature  to 
make  a  reverent  survey  of  the  broad  fields  covered 
by  revelation  ;  we  welcome  the  social  reformer  to 
make  an  honest  estimate  of  the  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity in  their  bearing  on  the  social  welfare  of  the 
human  race  ;  and  we  gladly  encourage  the  most 
careful  critical  study  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the 
Christian  system  by  the  lower  and  higher  critics 
alike.  We  repeat  what  has  been  stated  in  a  former 
chapter,  to  the  effect  that  we  believe  in  the  reverent 
study  of  many  of  the  questions  with  which  Higher 
Criticism  deals.  The  conservative  critic  has  an 
especially  important  work  to  do  in  this  field  at  the 
present  day.  This  service  he  should  seek  faith- 
fully to  render,  even  among  the  Babel  of  critical 
tongues  to  which  he  may  be  compelled  to  listen. 
With  sound  principles  under  his  feet,  and  right 
methods  in  his  hands,  the  conservative  critic  should 
address  himself  to  the  task  his  age  sets  before 
him,  and  by  thorough,  scholarly  investigation  seek 
to  establish  correct  conclusions,   and  at  the  same 


PRELIMINARY.  8S 

time  explode  the  false  theories  which  a  hasty  criti- 
cism boldly  expounds. 

It  will  thus  be  evident  that  our  objection  is  not 
lodged  against  Higher  Criticism  as  a  branch  of 
biblical  study,  but  against  the  false  principles  and 
unsound  methods  by  which  advanced  critics  are 
controlled  in  their  investigations.  It  is  against 
these  that  we  wage  war,  just  as  we  would  resist 
the  false  and  unsound  everywhere.  And,  in  our 
judgment,  the  work  of  the  conservative  critic  is  to 
join  in  this  warfare  ;  and  he  should  never  dream  of 
leaving  the  field  entirely  to  the  liberal  school  of 
criticism. 

All  this  naturally  leads  to  another  line  of  remark 
upon  which  we  desire  to  say  a  word  or  two  as  pre- 
liminary to  the  "Exposition  of  Advanced  Criti- 
cism," upon  which  we  are  presently  to  enter. 
What  we  have  in  view  and  wish  to  emphasize,  is 
the  great  importance,  perhaps  we  might  say  the 
urgent  necessity,  of  an  acquaintance  with  recent 
phases  of  modern  Higher  Criticism  by  the  ministry 
of  the  Christian  Church.  The  advanced  school  of 
criticism  in  Anglo-Saxon  circles  is  aggressive,  and 
in  many  respects  scholarly.  Their  writings  are 
abundant,  and  their  circulation  is  diligently  pushed. 
Magazine  and  review  articles,  single  treatises,  and 
even  International  Libraries  are  used  to  spread 
abroad  the  new  critical  theories.  Moreover,  these 
writings  are  often  quite  popular  in  their  style,  and 


84  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

thereby  secure  attention  and  hearing,  when  heavier 
treatises  would  not  be  read  at  all.  We  cannot  shut 
our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  literature  of  this  school 
is  widely  read,  and  doubtless  many  minds,  yet  im- 
mature, are  unconsciously  affected  by  it.  How- 
ever wc  may  account  for  the  fact,  the  truth  of  the 
statement  just  made  cannot  be  denied.  Whether 
it  be  love  of  novelty,  or  the  desire  to  learn  the 
truth,  or  the  literary  attractiveness  of  the  style,  or 
the  leaning  of  the  natural  mind  toward  opinions 
which  are  naturalistic,  we  may  not  be  able  to  say. 
One  thing  we  do  know,  and  that  is  that  the  ad- 
vanced school  has  secured  a  hearing  in  a  wide  circle, 
and  the  radical  theories  have  come  forth  from  the 
retreats  of  the  scholar.  We  are  thus  taught  in  vari- 
ous ways,  and  in  such  forms  that  intelligent  people 
are  now  made  more  or  less  familiar  with  some  of 
the  main  features  of  these  theories.    ' 

In  these  circumstances  it  is  very  necessary  that 
conservative  critics  should  arise  and  deal  with  these 
questions  in  a  plain  and  attractive  manner,  and  not 
allow  the  liberals  to  carry  the  palm  for  thorough 
scholarship,  and  for  literary  finish.  We  are  well 
aware  that  the  conservatives  have  not  been  nor  are 
they  now  idle  ;  but  the  impression  seems  to  be  left 
on  some  minds  that  there  is  room  for  further  thor- 
ough-going treatment  of  the  questions  from  the 
conservative  standpoint.  In  our  humble  judgment, 
the  work  to  be  done  is  to  follow  the  pathway  which 
the    advanced    critics    have    traveled,     examining 


PRELIMINAR  Y.  85 

their  alleged  facts  as  well  as  testing  their  proposed 
theories,  in  order  to  exhibit  the  weakness  of  the 
advanced  critical  position,  and  in  turn  to  show  how 
the  conservative  position  may  be  not  only  sus- 
tained, but  confirmed  by  the  very  latest  results  of 
sound  biblical  scholarship.  We  have  no  doubt 
but  ere  long  this  will  be  done,  and  in  the  meantime 
we  do  not  tremble  in  the  least  for  the  result.  It 
must  result  in  good,  for  the  truth  rejoices  in  the 
light. 

Then  there  is  another  thing  to  which  we  are  con- 
strained to  allude  before  we  begin  our  exposition. 
It  is  our  firm  conviction  that  it  is  not  enough  for 
the  Church  to  exercise  discipline  in  relation  to  those 
views,  and  even  suspend  from  the  office  of  the  min- 
istry those  who  are  convicted  of  holding  critical 
opinions  which  are  not  in  harmony  with  our  Stan- 
dards. Sooner  or  later,  the  theories  themselves 
must  be  tested  as  to  their  truth  or  error.  Now, 
while  we  maintain  that  the  administration  of  disci- 
pline in  such  cases  is  most  necessary  and  right,  and 
while  we  insist  that  "  the  Scripture  as  interpreted 
by  our  Standards"  forms  the  law  by  which  the  man 
accused  must  be  tried  and  judged,  still,  in  our  opin- 
ion, the  Church  will  make  a  great  mistake  if  she 
thinks  that  she  has  done  all  her  duty,  or  really  re- 
moved all  the  danger  to  which  she  is  exposed  at  the 
hands  of  these  radical  theories  of  Higher  Criticism, 
when  she  has  simply  cast  out  the  heretic.  The  theo- 
ries themselves  must  also  be  refuted,  and  conserva- 


86  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

tive  scholarship  has  a  work  of  great  importance  to 
do  in  this  field.  Unless  such  scholarship  can  really 
confirm  and  justify  the  judicial  action  of  a  Church 
court,  that  action  itself  will  be  robbed  of  much  of 
its  rational  value  and  moral  force.  For  if  the  dis- 
cipline be  administered  and  the  theory  be  not 
refuted,  then  the  alleged  heretic  becomes  an  ecclesi- 
astical martyr  before  the  world.  We  believe  in  the 
judicial  procedure,  and  have  no  sympathy  with  the 
popular  sentiment  against  "heresy  hunting,"  but 
we  believe  also  in  the  valuable  service  which  the 
conservative  higher  critic  is  to  render  in  the  refuta- 
tion of  false  and  dangerous  theories  on  this  field. 

It  goes  almost  without  saying,  therefore,  that  it 
is  very  necessary,  for  our  ministers,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, to  have  intelligent  views  in  regard  to  these 
theories  ;  for,  in  case  any  man  is  put  on  trial  in 
one  of  our  Church  courts,  touching  these  theories, 
it  would  be  a  great  pity  if  the  accused  could,  with 
any  show  of  reason,  turn  on  his  judges  and  say 
that  they  did  not  really  know  enough  about  these 
theories  to  judge  intelligently  in  regard  to  them. 
How  strong  an  argument  is  there  also  in  all  this  in 
favor  of  sound  and  ample  scholarship,  sanctified  to 
the  Master's  service  ;  and  what  an  impulse  this 
view  should  give  to  some  of  our  bright  young  men 
to  bend  every  energy  to  render  this  valuable  service 
to  the  Church. 


CHAPTER  II. 

EXPOSITION PHILOSOPHICAL  PRESUPPOSITIONS. 

The  last  chapter  began  the  work  of  exposition. 
It  was,  however,  entirely  introductory  in  its  nature. 
It  pointed  out  the  fact  that  the  modern  advanced 
theories  of  radical  critics  originated  beyond  the 
sphere  of  the  reverent  critical  study  of  the  Script- 
ures, and  that  these  have  been,  without  proper  pass- 
port or  naturalization,  brought  within  the  borders  of 
Christianity.  It  is  legitimate,  therefore,  for  con- 
servative criticism  to  regard  the  radical  theories  as 
aliens,  till  they  can  by  proper  credentials  fully 
vindicate  their  citizenship.  On  this  position  we 
shall  insist  constantly. 

In  the  same  chapter  it  was  also  contended  that 
some  intelligent  acquaintance  with  these  radical 
theories,  on  the  part  of  our  ministers  especially,  is 
of  great  moment  at  the  present  day.  It  cannot  be 
either  safe  or  wise  to  ignore  these  speculations, 
when  we  find  them  spread  broadcast  among  intelli- 
gent people  by  various  channels.  Above  all  it  was 
held  that  not  only  should  discipline  be  administered 
in  regard  to  those  who  hold  views  not  in  harmony 
with  the  Standards  of  the  Church,  but  the  theories 
themselves    must    be    refuted    by   the    methods   of 

[87] 


88  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

sound  scholarship.  Then  it  was  also  hinted  that 
those  who  may  have  to  sit  as  judges  in  cases  of 
discipline  involving  these  theories  should,  in  some 
reasonable  measure,  be  qualified  for  this  service. 

In  this  chapter  we  begin  the  task  of  formal  ex- 
position of  advanced  criticism.  We  seek  first  of 
all  to  discover  and  exhibit  some  of  the  underlying 
principles  which  the  radical  theories  assume. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  work  it  was  pointed 
out  that  the  essential  feature  of  radical  or  destruct- 
ive criticism  is  not  that  it  handles  the  topics  of 
Higher  Criticism,  but  that  it  deals  with  them  in  a 
certain  way.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  principles 
which  it  assumes,  the  presuppositions  which  it 
makes,  and,  above  all,  the  methods  as  well  as  the 
general  spirit  according  to  which  it  does  its  work, 
that  constitutes  the  real  nature  of  the  advanced 
criticism  now  under  review.  Hence,  the  indictment 
of  conservative  criticism  is  not  against  Higher  Criti- 
cism as  a  legitimate  branch  of  sacred  learning,  but 
against  the  principles  and  presuppositions,  and 
above  all,  against  the  methods,  of  that  school  of 
Higher  Criticism  known  as  radical,  rationalistic,  or 
destructive.  This  chapter  undertakes  to  exhibit 
some  of  the  principles  and  presuppositions  to  which 
afterward  we  shall  take  exception. 

In  the  first  place,  advanced  criticism  is  dominated 
by  a  philosophy,  and  it  makes  the  principles  of  this 
philosophy  its  main  presuppositions.  We  are  only 
saying   what    every    well-informed    scholar    knows 


PHILOSOPHICAL   PRESUPPOSITIONS.  89 

when  we  assert  that  Bibhcal  Criticism,  as  well  as 
Theology,  in  Germany,  has  been  dominated  by 
philosophy.  The  philosophy  which  for  over  a  gen- 
eration in  the  early  part  of  the  present  century 
exercised  almost  unlimited  sway  over  Criticism  and 
Theology,  was  that  of  Hegel.  Even  if  we  admit 
what  seems  to  be  the  case,  that  at  the  present  time 
there  is  a  tendency  to  return  to  some  of  the  funda- 
mental positions  of  the  Kantian  philosophy,  still  the 
fact  remains  that  we  can  truly  say  that  modern  ra- 
tionalistic criticism  in  Germany  was  rocked  in  the 
cradle  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy.  And  the  Eng- 
lish-speaking critics  who  have  imported  radical 
methods  and  theories  into  Britain  and  America, 
should  be  required  to  show  cause  how  they  can 
safely  adopt  these  methods  and  hold  these  theories, 
and  yet  pay  no  regard  to  the  philosophical  princi- 
ples from  which  these  theories  have  descended  by 
direct  succession.  Even  to  repudiate  the  parentage 
is  no  guarantee  that  the  nature  of  the  child  has  un- 
dergone radical  change. 

In  these  articles  we  cannot  enter  upon  any  ex- 
position of  the  Hegelian  philosophy.  It  would  be  no 
easy  task  to  do  this,  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary 
for  our  present  purposes.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that 
Hegel's  philosophy  is  an  elaborate  system  of  abso- 
lute idealism,  which  reall}^  constitutes  a  scheme  of 
idealistic  pantheism.  It  differs  from  the  pantheism 
of  Spinoza  in  positing,  as  the  basis  of  all  reality, 
absolute  spirit,  or  unconscious  impersonal  reason,  in 


90  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

the  place  of  the  infinite,  eternal,  and  all-embracing 
substance  of  the  scheme  of  Spinoza.  It  is  worth 
while  remarking  that  the  system  of  Herbert  Spencer 
has  points  of  contact  with  that  of  Hegel,  unlike  as 
they  are  in  many  respects.  Both  are  monistic,  and 
so  allow  only  one  real  existence,  and  leave  no  place 
for  a  personal  Being  who  transcends  the  universe. 
In  both  systems  there  is  what  may  be  termed  an 
eternal  evolutionary  process.  In  Hegel's  system  we 
have  that  eternal  process  of  "  becoming,"  by  means 
of  which  in  the  sphere  of  nature  and  of  spirit  the 
absolute  idea  of  unconscious  reason  seeks  to  realize 
itself ;  while  in  Spencer's  scheme  we  have  that 
eternal  movement  of  the  homogeneous,  by  means  of 
which  the  heterogeneous  in  actual  definite  material 
forms  is  brought  into  existence.  Hegel's  principle 
of  eternal  logical  process  is  an  idealistic  evolution, 
and  Spencer's  principle  of  eternal  physical  move- 
ment is  materialistic  evolution.  Thus  extremes 
meet  in  philosophy  ;  and  the  scheme  of  Hegel  is 
that  with  which  radical  criticism  is  connected. 

At  this  juncture  it  is  certainly  striking  to  observe 
again  that  pantheism  and  Higher  Criticism  of  an 
advanced  type  seem  frequently  to  run  side  by  side. 
From  the  history  sketched  in  previous  chapters,  we 
saw  that  Spinoza  was  among  the  very  first  to  broach 
the  theories  of  the  Old  Testament  literature  and 
religion  which  are  adopted  by  modern  radical  critics. 
In  his  hand  pantheism  and  advanced  criticism  are 
side  by  side.      And,  as  already  stated  in  this  chap- 


PHILOSOPHICAL   PRESUPPOSITIONS.  91 

ter,  they  reappear  side  by  side,  during  the  last  fifty 
years  in  Germany,  in  the  ideahstic  pantheism  of 
the  HegeHan  philosophy. 

Now,  sometimes  strange  coincidences  do  happen, 
but  we  can  hardly  believe  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
chance  that  Spinozism  and  the  Higher  Criticism 
are  found  together  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
that  Hegelianism  and  Higher  Criticism  flourish  side 
by  side  in  the  nineteenth  century.  We  are  strongly 
inclined  to  believe  that  there  is  some  natural  and 
inner  connection  between  these  two  things  which 
justifies  the  statement  already  made,  that  modern 
radical  Higher  Criticism  is  dominated  by  Hegel's 
philosophy.  We  might  go  further,  perhaps,  and 
make  good  the  position,  alike  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  and  from  the  facts  of  history,  that  idealistic 
pantheism  really  underlies  the  radical  literary  and 
historical  methods  and  theories  of  modern  critics. 
In  Hegel's  "  Philosophy  of  History,"  we  have  simply 
an  application  of  his  idealistic  pantheism  to  explain, 
in  an  evolutionary  way,  the  universal  history  of  the 
human  race.  In  Wellhausen's  "  History  of  Israel" 
we  have  a  special  application  of  the  same  principles 
to  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  Jewish  nation  and 
religion.  Our  first  point  of  exposition  is  thus 
brought  clearly  out,  that  modern  radical  criticism 
is  the  child  of  a  spurious  idealistic  pantheism. 

It  is  only  fair,  however,  to  add  in  this  connection 
that  many  radical  critics  may  be  totally  unconscious 
of  the  real  parentage  of  their  theories.      Some  of 


92  RADICAL    CR1TICIS?J. 

our  English-speaking  critics  may  not  be  conscious 
of  the  philosophical  principles  which  are  involved 
in  their  critical  methods.  Some  of  these  writers 
may  indeed  entirely  repudiate  all  sympathy  with 
these  philosophical  views,  and  yet  if  the  theories 
are  the  product  of  such  principles  in  the  hands  of 
those  who  invented  them,  we  are  justified  in  look- 
ing with  distrust  upon  the  same  theories,  even  in 
more  reverent  hands.  It  may  turn  out  that  the 
founders  are  consistent;  and  the  logic  of  events 
may  show  that  false  principles  will  surely  work  out 
their  legitimate  evil  results.  We,  at  this  stage, 
simply  express  our  suspicion  of  the  philosophy 
which,  if  it  has  not  begotten  radical  critical  theories, 
was  certainly  associated  with  their  infancy. 

In  the  second  place,  advanced  Higher  Criticism 
virtually  sets  aside  all  belief  in  the  supernatural, 
or  so  minimizes  it  as  to  entirely  empty  it  of  real 
meaning.  This  follows  naturally  from  the  preced- 
ing consideration  already  adduced.  The  idealistic 
pantheism  which  underlies  these  radical,  critical 
theories  is  at  the  same  time  an  evolution  or  devel- 
opment which  takes  place  in  a  purely  natural  way 
according  to  the  necessary  laws  of  logical  processes. 
Hence  everything  comes  into  existence  in  a  purely 
natural  way.  There  can  be  no  supernatural  reve- 
lation, no  miracle,  and  no  real  incarnation  in  the 
advent  of  Jesus  Christ.  Human  history  even  is 
ruled  by  the  same  necessary  natural  law,  and  if  we 
call   anything  in   human   history  supernatural,    we 


PHILOSOPHICAL   PRESUPPOSITIONS.  98 

either  use  the  term  in  a  sense  which  is  not  Chris- 
tian, or  we  ma}^  apply  that  term  to  all  events  in 
the  line  of  universal  history.  Grant  idealistic  evo- 
lution as  a  natural  development,  and  all  events  are 
either  natural  or  supernatural  according  to  the 
sense  in  which  the  words  are  used.  Niebuhr,  the 
historian,  virtually  applied  this  principle  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  we  have  the  won- 
derful results  in  his  remarkable  "  History  of  Rome," 
where  the  history  is  an  ideal  structure  rather  than 
a  faithful  record  of  facts. 

In  like  manner,  when  the  advanced  critics,  a  few 
years  ago,  in  Germany,  began  to  apply  the  same 
historical  methods,  based  on  the  same  philosoph- 
ical principles,  to  the  narratives  of  the  Scriptures, 
it  would  not  have  required  the  gift  of  prophecy  to 
predict  the  result.  We  would  expect  that  the 
attempt  would  surely  be  made  to  explain  the  relig- 
ious ideas  and  institutions  of  the  Jews  in  a  purely 
natural  way.  So  we  find  the  radical  theorists 
maintaining  that  the  national  history  and  religious 
ideas  of  the  Jews  form  but  a  part  of  that  wider  and 
entirely  natural  process,  in  which,  by  an  eternal 
process  of  "becoming,"  the  absolute  idea  Vv^as 
seeking  to  realize  itself  in  the  progress  of  human 
history.  Hence,  it  was  consistently  contended 
that  the  cu/tus  of  the  Jews,  as  well  as  of  other 
nations,  arose  and  was  developed  in  a  natural  and 
necessary  way.  It  is  abundantly  evident  that  the 
sure  result  of  all  this  would  be  to   reduce  religion 


94  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

in  every  form  to  pure  naturalism,  and  in  this  case 
the  religion  set  forth  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  was 
doomed  to  the  same  fate.  The  supernatural  must 
go.  This  is  the  fiat  of  the  philosophy  of  radical 
criticism. 

To  show  that  our  position  at  this  point  of  the 
exposition  is  neither  fanciful  nor  far-fetched,  we 
need  only  mention  the  fact  that  Kuenen,  in  the 
introductory  chapter  of  his  work  on  the  ' '  Hexa- 
teuch,"  takes  special  pains  to  say  that  he  sets  aside 
all  belief  in  the  supernatural,  and  in  the  special 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  If  Graf  and  Well- 
hausen  do  not  openly  take  the  same  position,  the 
manner  in  which  they  deal  with  the  questions  of 
criticism,  and  the  results  they  reach,  clearly  justifies 
the  same  verdict  against  them  in  regard  to  the  repu- 
diation of  belief  in  the  supernatural. 

These,  then,  are  two  of  the  principles  upon  which 
radical  criticism  is  built.  Two  others  remain  for 
presentation  in  the  exposition  of  our  next  chapter. 
In  closing  this  chapter,  we  are  surely  justified  in 
sounding  a  warning  note  against  the  hasty  adoption 
of  a  style  of  criticism  which  involves  such  anti- 
Christian  principles.  Even  if  the  English-speaking 
critic,  in  all  honesty  of  purpose,  thinks  that  he  can 
adopt  these  methods  and  results,  without  also  tak- 
ing the  principles,  he  may  find  that  he  has  simply 
attempted  the  impossible,  and  succeeded  in  being 
illogical. 


CHAPTER   III. 

EXPOSITION PHILOSOPHICAL    PRESUPPOSITIONS 

CONTINUED. 

Many  of  the  readers  of  our  last  chapter  were  no 
doubt  ready  to  regard  it  as  rather  philosophical, 
but  on  reflection  we  are  convinced  that  they  will 
admit  that  any  exposition  of  advanced  criticism 
must  exhibit  the  philosophy  of  which  it  is  the  child. 
In  that  chapter  two  of  the  underlying  principles  of 
this  school  of  criticism  were  set  forth.  The  ideal- 
istic evolution  of  the  philosophy  of  Hegel,  and  the 
denial  of  the  reality  of  the  supernatural,  are  the  two 
assumptions  which  were  considered.  Two  others 
at  least  remain  for  discussion  in  this  chapter. 

The  third  presupposition  is  that  the  old  view  of 
inspiration,  sometimes  termed  the  traditional,  must 
be  discarded.  If  the  supernatural  has  no  validity, 
of  course  inspiration  can  have  no  place.  If  the 
Christian  religion  with  its  literature  be  simply  a 
naturalistic  growth,  then  revelation  in  any  real 
sense  is  impossible,  and  inspiration  cannot  have 
any  reality.  In  general,  the  advanced  critical 
theories  seem  to  come  into  conflict  with  the  ordi- 
nary and  generally  received  views  of  inspiration. 
This  is  usually  confessed  by  those  advanced  critics 

[95] 


96  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

who  are  striving  to  retain  the  supernatural  in  their 
system,  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  these  theo- 
ries necessarily  bear  hard  on  a  consistent  doctrine 
of  inspiration.  One  will  tell  us  that  verbal  inspira- 
tion is  no  longer  tenable,  in  the  light  of  assured 
results  of  modern  criticism.  Another  will  assert 
that  the  concept  only,  and  not  the  language  form, 
can  be  inspired.  Still  another  will  argue  for  an  in- 
spired nation  which  produced  the  religion  and  sa- 
cred literature  set  forth  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
In  every  case  the  revolt  against  a  definite  scriptural 
doctrine  of  inspiration  is  evident. 

In  regard  to  this  general  presupposition,  it  is  not 
easy  to  give  a  brief  and  simple  exposition  which 
will  do  justice  to  various  phases  of  advanced  criti- 
cism. Thorough-going,  destructive  critics,  like 
Graf,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen,  openly  and  boldly 
reject  the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Script- 
ures in  any  proper  sense.  According  to  their  view 
the  Scriptures  are  excellent  sacred  literature,  but 
they  are  in  no  special  manner  different  from  the 
Zend  Avesta  or  the  Vedas.  They  may  even  go  so 
far  in  some  cases  as  to  say  that  the  Scripture  nar- 
ratives do  not  really  differ  from  the  Annals  of  Taci- 
tus, the  Memorabilia  of  Xenophon,  or  the  History 
of  Thucydides.  Then,  having  made  this  assump- 
tion, these  radical  critics  proceed  to  deal  with  the 
Scripture  narratives  as  z/they  were  in  no  respect 
different  from  other  good  or  even  sacred  literature. 


PHILOSOPHICAL  PRESUPPOSITIONS.  07 

Without  any  exaggeration,  we  can  very  safely  say 
that  the  advanced  school  in  the  persons  of  its  con- 
tinental leaders,  is  at  open  war  with  the  historic 
doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  literature  of  the 
Christian  system..  If  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  be 
accepted  even  in  words,  it  is  so  entirely  changed  as 
a  matter  of  fact  that  it  is  no  longer  the  same.  If 
the  shell  remains,  the  kernel  is  gone. 

It  is  only  fair  to  remark  here  that  not  a  few 
advanced  critics  profess  to  retain  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration  while  pursuing  their  critical  methods. 
They  maintain  that  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  is 
not  really  involved  in  the  controversies  in  the  field 
of  criticism,  and  that  the  doctrine  can  in  no  way  be 
injured  by  radical  methods  and  reconstructive  con- 
clusions. Robertson  Smith  took  this  position  in 
the  controversy  which  resulted  in  his  removal  from 
his  Chair  at  Aberdeen.  He  maintained  most  strenu- 
ously that  the  investigations  of  Higher  Criticism 
did  not  interfere  in  the  least  with  the  validity  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  sacred  Scripture. 
Briggs  endeavored  to  stand  on  the  same  ground 
with  but  indifferent  success.  Driver  and  Cheyne  in 
Britain,  and  Harper  in  this  country,  all  find  them- 
selves compelled  to  modify  their  views  upon  inspi- 
ration. They,  too,  take  up  the  cry  that  the  old 
views  of  inspiration  are  no  longer  tenable.  They 
tell  us  again  and  again  that  the  assured  results  of 
modern  criticism  demand  that  the  doctrine  of  in- 


98  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

spiration  must  be  recast.  In  every  case  the  result 
of  the  recasting  is  that  the  new  form  is  decidedly 
lower  and  less  definite  than  the  old. 

Now  it  is  to  be  greatly  feared  that  those  who  are 
attempting  to  hold  a  reverent  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion, and  to  follow  out  radical  methods,  are  much 
less  logical  and  consistent  than  those  who  throw  in- 
spiration overboard  entirely  at  the  outset.  To  our 
minds  it  seems  clear  that  if  the  philosophy  and 
radical  critical  methods  of  the  continental  leaders 
in  this  movement  be  adopted,  there  is  neither  a 
place  nor  any  need  for  the  doctrine  of  inspiration. 
How  long  Anglo-Saxon  critics  shall  succeed  in  re- 
taining any  satisfactory  view  of  inspiration  while 
using  the  methods  of  their  Teutonic  teachers  re- 
mains to  be  seen.  We  are  seriously  inclined  to 
think  that  inspiration  will  vanish  entirely,  and  leave 
nothing  behind  but  the  human  husk  in  which  the 
divine  kernel  was  lodged.  In  any  case  to  assume 
and  follow  principles  in  criticism  which  are  in  con- 
flict with  hitherto  accepted  views  of  inspiration,  is 
inadmissible  at  the  outset. 

In  many  respects  we  regard  this  as  one  of  the 
chief  dangers  which  arise  from  the  adoption  of  the 
methods  of  radical  criticism  with  its  reconstructive 
theories.  If  we,  in  the  legitimate  work  of  Higher 
Criticism,  feel  ourselves  perfectly  free  to  play  fast 
and  loose  with  what  purports  to  be  historical  facts, 
and  to  re-arrange  the  chronological  order  of  the 
events  according  to  philosophical  presuppositions, 


PHILOSOPHICAL  PRESUPPOSITIONS.  99 

or  in  accordance  with  subjective  opinions,  we 
simply  make  it  impossible  to  retain  our  belief  in  the 
general  contents  of  the  Scriptures  as  infallible  and 
authoritative.  This  procedure  at  once  renders  a 
definite  doctrine  of  inspiration  impossible.  Each 
critic  makes  or  unmakes  his  Bible  till  there  remains 
no  ' '  word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  for- 
ever,"  upon  which  men  can  with  confidence  rely. 

A  true  doctrine  of  inspiration  must  be  determined 
by  the  claims  which  the  Scripture  makes  for  itself, 
and  by  the  facts  which  the  sacred  record  actually 
contains.  This  once  ascertained,  our  whole  study 
of  the  questions  which  Higher  Criticism  handles 
should  be  pursued,  mindful  of  the  fact  that  Script- 
ure actually  possesses  the  peculiar  quality  which 
inspiration  denotes.  This  being  the  case,  we  can- 
not so  separate  inspiration  and  Higher  Criticism 
as  to  find  our  results  in  the  latter  in  no  way  affect- 
ing our  views  in  regard  to  the  former.  What  we 
have  already  said  in  regard  to  the  pressure  which 
the  advanced  critics  find  imposed  upon  them  by 
their  theories,  to  recast,  modify,  or  abandon  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration,  is  full  proof  of  this  asser- 
tion. The  sound  position,  as  we  understand  the 
case,  is  to  deal  with  the  sacred  Scriptures  by  the 
same  literary,  historical,  and  grammatical  methods 
as  we  would  with  any  other  literature,  but  at  the 
same  time  to  remember  that  we  ought  not  to  treat 
the  Scriptures  as  if  they  were  the  same  in  all 
respects    as    other   literature.      The    factor   which 


100  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

inspiration  denotes  cannot  be  ignored.  To  adopt 
critical  methods  and  results  which  shut  out  inspira- 
tion, is  the  great  danger  to  which  we  are  exposed 
by  the  results  of  advanced  criticism.  Consistent 
radical  criticism  sets  inspiration  aside  at  first,  while 
advanced  reverent  criticism  adopting  unsound  prin- 
ciples will  surely  find  itself,  in  spite  of  its  reverent 
protestations,  led  by  the  logic  of  events  to  the  re- 
pudiation of  inspiration  in  any  proper  sense. 

The  fourth  and  last  general  assumption  which 
radical  criticism  makes  lies  in  its  general  theory  in 
regard  to  the  origin  and  growth  of  religion.  That 
theory  is  the  evolutionary  or  naturalistic  type.  In 
its  continental  propounders,  advanced  criticism 
holds  the  evolutionary  theory  in  regard  to  all  the 
religious  systems  in  the  world.  These  systems,  we 
are  assured  with  a  great  deal  of  learning  and  much 
authority,  are  all  the  natural  products,  some  lower, 
others  higher,  of  the  religious  instinct  in  man.  So 
in  like  manner  w^ith  the  religious  system  set  forth 
in  the  Bible  ;  it,  too,  is  the  product  of  evolution. 
By  slow  degrees,  through  many  ages,  the  devel- 
opment of  the  natural  religious  sentiment  of  human 
nature  has  been  going  on,  and  the  last  mature 
product  is  the  Christian  system  with  its  wonder- 
ful literature.  Why  it  has  ceased  with  this  system, 
or  whether  the  evolution  shall  yet  go  beyond  it, 
we  are  not  told. 

Accordingl3%  the  first  forms  of  all  religions  were 
the  lowest  and  crudest,  and  the  law  of  development 


PHILOSOPHICAL   PRESUPPOSITIONS.        101 

was  progress  from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  from 
the  lower  to  the  higher.  Thus  the  Jewish  system 
was  a  gradual  growth  from  polytheism  with  tribal 
deities  to  monotheism  with  the  one  living  and  true 
God.  In  like  manner,  the  ritual  and  legislation  of 
the  religion  of  Israel  expanded  from  very  simple 
forms  to  increasing  complexity,  all  by  a  natural  law 
of  evolution.  At  length,  in  the  fullness  of  evolu- 
tionary time,  the  Christian  system  appeared  as  a 
decided  advance,  and  it  stands  as  the  ripest  fruit  of 
the  development  process.  And  we  are  assured  that 
the  process  of  upward  movement  is  still  operative, 
and  that  Christianity  may  in  due  time  have  to  give 
way  to  "the  religion  of  the  future,"  which  will  be 
still  an  advance  on  Christianity,  although  a  purely 
natural  product  whose  general  nature  we  are  left 
to  surmise  for  ourselves. 

Then  since  the  religion  itself  is  a  purely  natural 
evolutionary  product  of  humanity  endowed  with 
the  principle  of  progress,  the  literature  of  this  re- 
ligion is  also  the  product  of  evolution,  not  of  divine 
revelation  and  inspiration.  The  sacred  Scriptures 
are  but  the  product  of  the  various  stages  of  relig- 
ious attainment  to  which  the  people  producing  the 
Scriptures  had  reached.  These  Scriptures  simply 
register  the  religious  ideas  of  the  ages  in  which 
they  were  produced,  instead  of  being  the  product  of 
divine  interposition.  The  Jewish  Church  and  na- 
tion and  the  early  Christian  Church  produced  the 
Scriptures  entirely,   whereas  the  true  view  is  that 


102  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

the  Scriptures  and  their  contents  produced  the  Jew- 
ish and  the  early  Christian  Church.  This  inversion 
of  the  order  is  a  serious  matter. 

We  add  that  while  some  advanced  critics  may  re- 
pudiate all  sympathy  with  this  evolutionary  princi- 
ple in  the  growth  of  religion,  yet  the  fact  cannot 
be  ignored  that  in  the  hands  of  the  founders  of 
these  radical  theories  it  plays  a  very  important  part 
in  their  speculations.  That  there  is  need  for  the 
utmost  care  here  on  the  part  of  conservative  criti- 
cism is  self-evident.  Divine  development  is  one 
thing,  but  natural  evolution  is  another.  Criticism 
must  respect  the  former,  but  dare  not  parley  with 
the  latter. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EXPOSITION THE  METHODS  OF  ADVANCED  CRITICISM. 

For  two  chapters  we  have  been  making  some 
exposition  of  the  underlying  principles  of  the  school 
of  radical  criticism  now  under  discussion.  Four 
of  these  principles  or  assumptions  were  briefly  ex- 
pounded. In  the  course  of  the  discussions  it  has 
appeared  that  the  philosophy  of  idealistic  panthe- 
ism, the  denial  of  the  reality  of  the  supernatural, 
the  repudiation  or  modification  of  inspiration,  and 
the  acceptance  of  the  evolutionary  explanation  of 
religion,  constitute  the  main  principles  and  under- 
lying assumptions  of  advanced  or  rationalistic  criti- 
cism. This  is  specially  true  of  it  in  its  birthplace, 
and  as  held  by  its  leading  advocates. 

In  this  chapter  we  pass  on  to  deal  in  a  general 
way  with  the  methods  of  procedure  adopted  by 
advanced  criticism.  And  at  the  outset,  we  wish  to 
say  that  the  space  at  command  in  a  brief  work 
of  this  kind,  renders  it  quite  impossible  to  go 
into  much  detail  in  our  exposition.  It  will  be  en- 
tirely out  of  the  question  to  attempt  to  follow 
the  various  views  of  different  writers  in  this  school 
of  criticism.  This  would  be  an  almost  endless 
task,  for  there  are  now  so  many  of  these  writers, 

[103] 


104  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

and  there  is  such  a  lack  of  agreement  among  them 
in  regard  to  almost  every  point  raised  in  the  con- 
troversy, that  to  gather  the  consensus  of  opinion  is 
a  difficult  undertaking  in  itself.  We  must  conse- 
quently content  ourselves  with  general  expository 
outlines  of  view  in  treating  of  their  methods. 

In  the  discussion  upon  which  we  now  enter,  it  is 
well  to  remember  that  the  principles  and  methods 
of  rationalistic  criticism  are  applicable  to  the  whole 
of  the  Scriptures.  At  one  time  the  battle  may  be 
hottest  on  the  Old  Testament  field,  and  at  another 
on  the  New.  A  generation  ago  the  forces  were  in 
fierce  conflict  on  the  New  Testament  territory. 
Driven  from  that  region,  they  marshaled  their 
forces  and  entered  on  a  campaign  against  the  Old 
Testament.  Here  the  conflict  is  now  waged  with 
the  utmost  vigor  and  determination,  so  that  the 
clash  of  arms  is  heard  on  every  hand.  The  forces 
of  advanced  criticism  now  claim  some  important 
victories,  and  at  times  show  a  rather  boastful  spirit. 
That  they  shall  be  able  to  hold  all  the  positions 
they  think  they  have  surely  captured,  remains  to 
be  seen.  That  they  have  really  made  all  the  con- 
quests they  claim  to  have  made,  may  be  seriously 
questioned.  That  internal  dissensions  in  the  ranks 
of  advanced  criticism  already  exist,  and  shall  soon 
weaken  the  force  of  its  assault,  may  be  asserted 
with  some  confidence. 

At  present,  the  real  center  of  conflict  is  on  the 
Old   Testament    field,    and   it  gathers    around    the 


METHODS    OF  ADVANCED    CRITICISM.      105 

religion  and  sacred  literature  of  the  Israelites. 
This  being  the  case,  we  shall  perhaps  best  expound 
the  methods  of  advanced  criticism  at  present  in 
vogue  if  we  deal  directly  with  these  methods  as 
exhibited  in  their  treatment  of  the  origin  and 
growth  of  the  religion  and  sacred  books  of  Israel. 
Adopting  this  general  course,  we  shall  have  to  deal 
at  length  with  the  ritual  and  legislation  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  with  the  prophets  and  their  work  in 
the  expansion  of  the  religious  ideas  and  practices  of 
the  people. 

At  the  very  outset  we  signalize  the  fact  that  the 
metJiods  of  advanced  criticism  to  a  large  extent 
constitute  a  theory.  In  the  procedure  of  nearly 
all  its  original  exponents,  a  theory  is  assumed 
and  brought  to  the  facts,  instead  of  the  theory 
being  made  the  adequate  philosophy  of  the  facts. 
Much  that  has  been  said  in  two  preceding  chapters 
justifies  this  statement.  The  radical  critics  come 
to  their  task  with  a  theory  in  regard  to  the  super- 
natural, in  reference  to  inspiration,  and  concerning 
the  origin  and  growth  of  religion.  Then  with  this 
4heory  in  their  hands,  they  proceed  to  deal  with 
the  Old  Testament  history  and  religion.  Profes- 
sing to  be  above  all  else  historical  critics,  we  find 
them  openly  ignoring  the  simple  historicity  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  proceeding  to  re- 
construct the  history,  not  in  the  light  of  profane 
history  and  monumental  evidence,  but  according  to 
the  stern  conditions  of  a  mere  theory.     While  they 


y' 


106  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

insist  repeatedly  that  they  only  of  all  the  critics  are 
the  true  scientific  critics,  we  often  find  them  pur- 
suing entirely  unscientific  methods  in  dealing  with 
the  way  in  which  the  idea  of  deity,  the  expansion 
of  ritual,  and  the  complexity  of  legislation  actually 
developed  in  Israel.  Here,  again,  as  we  hope 
afterward  to  show  at  some  length,  we  find  the 
advanced  critics  dominated  at  every  turn  by  a 
theory.  To  tl^em,  it  often  seems  that  a  theory  is 
more  real  than  a  fact,  somewhat  after  the  manner 
that  Bishop  Berkeley,  as  a  philosopher,  would  have 
us  look  upon  the  reality  of  the  material  objects 
of  the  outward  world.  One  of  the  curious  things 
in  the  whole  controversy  on  the  field  of  Higher 
Criticism  is  the  coolness  with  which  what  the 
advanced  critics  term  the  traditional  views  are 
set  aside,  and  the  confidence  with  which  theories, 
which  at  best  are  but  w^orking  hypotheses  not  yet 
proved,  are  put  in  place  of  these  views.  In  some 
cases  the  advanced  critics  are  so  possessed  with 
their  theories  that  the  assumption  seems  to  be  un- 
consciously made  by  them  that  they  are  the  only 
scholarly  critics,  and  that  their  criticism  alone  is 
scientific  and  worthy  the  notice  of  thinking  men. 
At  the  outset  of  our  exposition  of  the  mctJiods  of 
advanced  criticism,  we  point  out  the  fact  that  they 
are  to  a  large  extent  hypothetical,  or  a  set  of  theo- 
ries, which  are  boldly  propounded  as  the  assured 
results  of  modern  criticism,  w^hich  all  men  of  en- 


METHODS   OF  ADVANCED    CRITICISM.       107 

lightened  scholarship  must  accept  on  pain  of  exclu- 
sion from  the  guild  of   "competent  scholars." 

Perhaps  the  remaining  part  of  this  chapter  can 
best  be  devoted  to  a  brief  bird's-eye  view  of  the 
general  type  of  theory  in  accordance  with  which 
the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  religious  system 
must  be  recast.  In  presenting  such  a  sketch  we  do 
not  follow  any  single  writer  closely,  but  attempt  to 
present  a  general  view  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hy- 
pothesis as  set  forth  by  its  original  authors  in  part, 
and  as  modified  by  its  English-speaking  modern 
exponents  in  part. 

As  already  indicated  the  debate  gathers  round 
the  history  of  Israel,  and  the  origin  of  that  nation 
and  of  the  system  of  religious  ideas  and  practices 
contained  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and 
especially  as  found  in  the  mature  Levitical  system. 
There  are  three  distinct  factors  to  be  briefly  pre- 
sented here.  These  are  the  national,  the  religious, 
and  the  literary  features  of  the  religion  of  Israel. 
Hence  the  rationalistic  critics  have  a  theory  of  the 
nation  of  Israel,  of  the  growth  of  their  religious 
system,  and  of  the  production  of  their  sacred  books. 
Throughout,  the  supernatural  is  denied,  and  an 
explanation  by  means  of  mere  naturalistic  develop- 
ment is  attempted.      This  is  the  tJico}'y. 

In  regard  to  the  origin  and  development  of  the 
nation,  the  call  of  Abraham,  if  it  has  historically 
any  reality,  was  nothing  more  than  a  natural  mi- 


108  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

gration.  Even  Cheyne  in  some  recent  utterances 
seems  to  be  prepared  to  go  as  far  as  Stade,  a  pro- 
fessedly rationalistic  critic  in  Germany,  who  regards 
Abraham  as  a  somewhat  mythical  personage.  In 
general,  the  radical  critical  theory  looks  upon  Israel 
as  the  product  of  a  number  of  wandering  tribes, 
rather  than  of  a  divine  call  of,  and  care  for,  one 
family.  These  tribes,  not  very  different  from  other 
tribes  of  that  age  and  locality,  settled  in  Canaan, 
and,  instead  of  remaining  distinct  and  making  con- 
quest, mingled  with  the  tribes  already  settled  there. 
By  degrees  a  process  of  natural  amalgamation  took 
place,  and  the  result  was  the  production  of  the 
Israelitish  people.  In  the  early  ages  there  were  no 
such  national  features  as  are  denoted  by  the  tv.'elve 
patriarchs,  the  sons  of  Jacob  and  the  sources  of 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  The  tribal  idea  came 
into  existence  later  on,  and  had  really  no  definite 
form  at  first.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  so  far  as  the 
origin  of  the  nation  is  concerned,  there  is  no  essen- 
tial difference  between  the  beginnings  of  Israel  and 
the  genesis  of  the  peoples  and  nations  of  Greece 
and  Rome  from  various  scattered  elements  gradu- 
ally combining  together  in  a  natural  way.  This 
conception  or  theory  of  the  nation  lies  at  the  basis 
of  the  entire  radical  critical  scheme. 

In  the  second  place,  regarding  the  origin  and 
development  of  religion,  the  radical  critics  maintain 
that  at  first  a  form  of  polytheism  prevailed.     The 


METHODS   OF  ADVANCED    CRITICISM.       109 

chief  deity  was  Jehovah,  or  Jahveh,  who  was  not 
really  regarded  as  the  one  living  and  true  God,  but 
rather  as  a  tribal  deity,  not  unlike  Baal,  Molech, 
and  Dagon.  It  was  only  by  slow  degrees  that 
monotheism  was  developed,  and  polytheistic  ele- 
ments were  eliminated.  Not,  indeed,  till  the  age 
of  the  prophets  did  ethical  monotheism  appear,  and 
it  was  only  after  the  Exile  that  monotheism  became 
the  fixed  form  of  belief  in  Israel. 

In  like  manner,  the  ritual  and  legislation  in  the 
Mosaic  system  only  came  gradually  into  existence 
and  observance.  At  first,  sacrifice  was  simple,  and 
the  form  of  worship  was  not  elaborate.  The  rites 
and  ceremonies  were  not  essentially  different  from 
those  of  the  tribes  round  about  them.  Early  cus- 
toms, primitive  observances,  and  legendary  ideas 
by  slow  gradation  grew  into  more  definite  form. 
These  customs  gradually  rose  into  legislation,  sim- 
ple rites  by  degrees  became  elaborate  ritual,  and 
primitive  modes  of  Vv^orsliip  slowly  expanded  into 
the  elaborate  system  of  mature  Mosaism.  In  this 
way,  an  attempt  is  made  to  give  in  a  purely  natural 
way  an  explanation  of  the  rise  and  elaboration  of 
Mosaism  into  Prophetism,  and  of  Prophetism,  in  due 
time,  into  Judaism.  The  legislation  was  prior  to 
the  ritual,  and  the  prophetic  element  was  before 
the  legislation.  The  order,  therefore,  is  not  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  but  the  prophets  and  the 
law.     And  last  of  all  comes  the  mature  Levitical 


110  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

code.  By  slow  degrees,  through  nearl}'  a  thousand 
years,  from  Moses  to  Ezra,  all  this  development 
occurred. 

Then,  in  the  third  place,  in  regard  to  the  produc- 
tion of  the  sacred  books,  the  radical  theory  has  its 
views  quite  in  harmony  with  what  has  just  been 
stated.  Moses  wrote  little  if  anything  of  the  books 
associated  with  his  name.  Perhaps  part  of  the  cov- 
enant code,  as  it  is  called  in  Exodus,  was  from  his 
hand,  but  the  literature  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers 
was  not  produced  by  him.  The  simple  rites  and 
customs  spoken  of  under  the  previous  head  had  de- 
veloped into  ritual  and  legislation  before  the  litera- 
ture describing  these  matters  took  its  rise.  It  was 
only  about  the  eighth  century  b.  c,  when  the 
prophets  appeared,  that  the  literature  began  to  take 
definite  shape.  But  it  was  not  till  after  the  period  of 
the  Exile  and  Ezra  that  most  of  the  Old  Testament 
literature  took  its  definite  final  form.  True,  there 
were  portions  of  the  literature  extant  before,  but  it 
existed  in  scattered  documentary  form,  as  the  critics 
say,  and,  by  the  slow  processes  of  the  crude  literary 
methods  then  in  vogue  ;  it  took  its  final  shape  only 
a  few  centuries  before  the  Christian  era. 

Such  is  a  brief  general  description  of  the  methods 
of  the  advanced  critics,  which  at  the  outset  we  de- 
scribe as  a  theory.  In  the  above  sketch  v^•e  are 
satisfied  that  the  position  of  radical  criticism  has 
not  been   overstated.      Our  readers  must  be  con- 


METHODS   OF  ADVANCED    CRITICISM.       Ill 

vinced  that  even  this  statement  is  sufficient  to  show 
how  radical  and  destructive  of  the  ordinary  views 
this  theory  is.  By  its  very  boldness  and  show  of 
learning,  it  commands  attention,  and  its  proposed 
reconstruction  of  the  religion  of  Israel  demands 
careful  examination.  The  next  chapter  will  open 
up  further  particulars  in  regard  to  it. 


CHAPTER  V. 

EXPOSITION  —  DOCUMENTARY    HYPOTHESIS. 

In  the  last  chapter  emphasis  was  laid  upon  the 
fact  that  the  general  procedure  of  advanced  critics 
was  really  a  theory.  They  have  a  theory  of  the 
Jewish  people,  of  the  way  in  which  religion  devel- 
oped among  them,  and  in  regard  to  the  mode  in 
which  their  sacred  books  were  produced.  This  the- 
ory, we  are  convinced,  is  not  the  one  which  the 
biblical  writers  themselves  seem  to  have  held,  but 
it  is  rather  a  mere  hopothesis,  according  to  which 
the  claim  is  made  that  the  history  and  religious 
system  of  the  Scriptures  must  be  reconstructed. 
We  make  bold  to  say,  even  in  the  face  of  high 
claims  to  the  contrary,  that  the  general  methods 
and  results  of  Higher  Criticism  of  the  radical  type 
have  not  yet  been  removed  from  the  region  of 
unverified  hypothesis.  It  might  even  be  debated 
whether    they   constitute    a   verifiable    hypothesis. 

At  the  same  time  we  are  convinced  that  as  a 
theory,  with  certain  supposed  conclusions  estab- 
lished, it  touches  vital  features  of  the  Christian 
system,  as  we  understand  that  system.  The  gen- 
eral theory  of  the  Jewish  nation,  ritual,  and  litera- 
ture set  forth  in  the  last  chapter,  fully  justifies  this 

[112] 


DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS.  113 

statement.  Advanced  critical  conclusions,  in  our 
judgment,  are  not  merely  certain  views  regarding 
the  mode  of  the  composition,  the  age,  and  the 
authors  of  certain  books  ;  but  these  conclusions  im- 
ply a  definite  theory  in  regard  to  the  Christian 
system  in  general,  and  in  relation  to  the  inspira- 
tion of  sacred  Scripture  in  particular,  which,  so  far 
as  we  can  see,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  sound 
views  of  Christianity,  and  which  are,  therefore, 
full  of  serious  danger  to  some  of  the  essential  fac- 
tors in  that  system  of  religion  which,  we  believe, 
exhibits  the  supernatural  as  its  unique  and  distin- 
guishing feature.  The  situation  is  one,  therefore, 
which  surely  demands  careful  study. 

In  continuing  our  exposition  of  the  methods  of 
radical  criticism  we  shall,  in  this  chapter,  seek  to 
give  some  brief  explanation  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  so-called  docinncntary  hypothesis  is  used  in 
support  of  the  advanced  critical  views  now  under 
discussion. 

In  general,  this  hypothesis  maintains  that  the 
Scriptures  as  we  now  have  them  did  not  take  their 
present  form  all  at  once.  They  were  compiled  by 
various  authors,  rather  than  composed  by  the 
writers  to  whose  hands  they  have  been  usually 
ascribed.  It  is  assumed  that  in  early  times  there 
existed  a  considerable  mass  of  disconnected  nar- 
ratives and  traditions  among  the  people  who  com- 
posed the  Jewish  nation.  There  primitive  docu- 
ments and  traditions  were  used  by  the  writers  of 
8 


114  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

the  books  of  Scripture,  and  so  by  a  gradual  natural 
process  the  literature  was  constructed  to  a  large 
extent  out  of  pre-existent  documents.  In  like 
manner,  it  is  further  assumed  that  the  books  thus 
produced  did  not  take  their  final  form  till  much 
later  than  the  dates  ascribed  to  them  by  the  ordi- 
nary historical  view.  In  harmony  with  this  general 
supposition,  we  are  assured  that  the  authorship  and 
date  of  the  several  books  is  a  matter  of  little  mo- 
ment; and,  indeed,  radical  critics  seem  to  think  that 
anonymous  authorship  gives  a  higher  value  to  the 
books  in  question.  One  of  the  many  curiosities  of 
the  methods  of  advanced  criticism  appears  in  this 
connection.  It  consists  in  the  strange  anomaly  of 
the  critics'  ability  to  tell  us  all  about  how  the  books 
were  compiled,  and  what  parts  belonged  to  this 
author  and  that,  to  this  age  and  that,  and  yet  at 
the  same  time  the  names  of  the  various  authors  or 
compilers  are  not  given  by  the  critics.  It  does  seem 
strange  that  the  wonderful  critical  insight  which 
enables  the  critic  to  resolve  a  book  into  its  simple 
elements,  and  the  ability  which  qualifies  him  to 
reconstruct  the  composite  literature  in  a  new  mould, 
are  not  also  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  give  us  the 
names  of  the  authors  of  the  various  sections  of  the 
literature,  or  even  of  the  completed  compilations. 
If  the  names  of  the  writers  are  hypothetical,  may 
not  their  supposed  work  as  authors  and  compilers 
be  also  hypothetical.  In  other  words  it  is  theory 
throughout.      But  we    must    give    more    particular 


DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS.  115 

explanation  of  the  way  in  which  the  doctumentary 
hypothesis  is  utihzed  in  favor  of  the  radical  critical 
position. 

The  different  critics  vary  in  view  in  regard  to  the 
several  documents  which  enter  into  the  structure  of 
the  books  in  their  final  form.  We  can,  therefore, 
only  present  the  general  features  of  the  theory. 
Since  the  critics  are  ignorant  of  the  names  of  the 
authors  of  the  various  elemental  factors  in  the  Old 
Testament  books,  they  have  been  compelled  to  in- 
vent symbols  and  figures  to  denote  these  unknown 
literary  personages.  We  shall  now  describe  these 
in  order  to  show  how  the  documentary  hypothesis 
is  used  in  the  methods  of  advanced  criticism. 

The  symbol  "J"  is  taken  to  represent  certain 
original  writings  which  were  drawn  up  by  an  author 
called  the  Jehovist,  or  by  a  series  of  writers  who 
used  the  name  Jehovah  to  denote  the  Deity.  Those 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  this  name 
is  applied  to  the  Almighty  are,  quite  irrespective  of 
the  subject  matter  with  which  they  deal,  ascribed 
to  this  supposed  author  or  series  of  writers.  The 
radical  critics  go  through  the  Scriptures,  especially 
the  Pentateuch,  and  cull,  transpose,  and  cast  out 
words  and  phrases  as  they  think  the  documents 
written  by  "  J  "  require. 

The  symbol  "E"  is  used  to  denote  the  author, 
or  set  of  authors,  who  wrote  those  passages  in  which 
the  name  Elohim  is  applied  to  the  Supreme  Being. 
These  passages  are  perhaps  among  the  very  earliest 


116  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

which  enter  into  the  composition  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  they  are  supposed  to  have  been  written 
by  a  writer,  or  series  of  writers,  who,  for  some 
reason,  preferred  the  name  Elohim  to  Jehovah. 
The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  a  good  example  of 
this  document  which  has  come  to  us  from  the 
Elohist. 

Then,  some  critics  speak  of  "J  E  "  as  another 
and  a  later  writer,  who,  with  "J"  and  "E"  both 
before  him,  combined  them,  or  as  a  separate  au- 
thor who  preferred  the  compound  name  Jehovah- 
Elohim  for  the  Deity.  In  either  case,  those  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament  wherein  there  occurs  this 
double  naming  of  the  Deity,  are  to  be  ascribed  to 
an  author  or  series  of  authors  distinct  from  the 
Jehovist  and  Elohist  writers.  Hence,  wherever 
this  name  so  occurs,  it  is  assumed  that  another  set 
of  authors  produced  these  documents.  The  most 
of  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  is  a  good  illustra- 
tion of  these  particular  composite  documents  pro- 
duced by  "  J  E." 

Another  important  set  of  the  producers  and  com- 
pilers of  certain  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
denoted  by  the  symbol  "D."  This  symbol  repre- 
sents the  Deuteronomist,  and  the  main  substance 
of  his  literary  materials  appears  in  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy.  Of  course  this  writer,  or  series  of 
writers,  went  over  the  writings  of  the  previous 
authors,  as  above  described,  and  modified  them, 
adding  certain  parts  ;  and  thus  the  critics  profess  to 


D  0  CUMENTAR  V  HYPO  THESIS.  117 

be  able  to  point  out  all  through,  what  parts  belong- 
to  each  author.  The  substance  of  the  Deuteron- 
omic  legislation  came  in  this  way  into  existence, 
but  at  a  much  later  date.  The  time  usually  as- 
cribed is  a  little  before  the  days  of  Josiah,  625  or  so, 
B.  c.  Some  of  the  critics  have  such  remarkably 
keen  insight  that  they  think  they  can  discover 
several  Deuteronomic  writers,  and  these  are  de- 
noted by  the  additional  symbols  "  D/'  "  D^'  "D3. " 
As  thus  decorated  with  learned  suppositions,  the 
writings  of  some  of  those  advanced  critics  look  like 
treatises  on  higher  mathematics  where  certain  sym- 
bols are  used  to  denote  unknown  quantities.  The 
work  of  the  Deuteronomist  and  his  assistants  is  im- 
portant inasmuch  as  it  appears  in  the  production 
of  a  large  part  of  the  books  of  Moses  as  they  are 
called. 

A  still  further  symbol  used  is  "P."  This  ex- 
presses those  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
are  supposed  to  have  been  produced  by  a  set  of 
priestly  scribes  who  lived  about  the  time  of  Ezra, 
and  who  did  so  much  to  develop  the  mature  Mosaic 
ritual.  Large  parts  of  Genesis,  Leviticus,  and  some 
sections  of  Numbers,  are  due  to  these  priestly 
scribes.  Hence  the  literature  of  the  developed 
scheme  of  sacrifice  and  ritual  comes  into  view,  to- 
gether with  historical  additions.  It  is  usually  held 
that  the  religious  rites  and  beliefs  herein  set  forth 
actually  came  into  existence  by  a  process  of  codi- 
fication prior  to  the  writing  of  the  books  giving  an 


118  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

account  of  them.  These  writings  were  gradually 
developed  in  the  ages  before  Ezra,  and  the  priestly 
set  of  writers  reduced  the  regulations  to  writing,  and 
retouched  further  the  previous  writings,  so  as  to 
produce  the  highly  composite  result  which  this  part 
of  the  Old  Testament  presents.  Here  also,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  original  "P,"  there  was  a  number  of 
other  priestly  writers,  who  were  imbued  with  the 
priestly  spirit,  and  these  are  denoted  by  the  sym- 
bols, "Pi"  "P,"  "P3."  Thus  much  of  the  elabo- 
rate ritual  and  legislation,  showing  an  increasing 
monotheistic  conception  of  the  Deity,  and  exhibit- 
ing a  growing  tendency  to  one  central  place  of  wor- 
ship, comes  into  existence  according  to  the  opin- 
ions of  radical  critics.  In  the  hands  of  "  P, "  and 
his  co-laborers,  the  system  of  mature  Mosaism 
eventually  appears. 

Finally,  the  last  symbol  which  the  radical  critics 
employ  is  "R. "  This  symbol  denotes  an  author, 
or  a  set  of  writers,  who  lived  and  labored  after  the 
Exile,  and  whose  labors  put  the  Old  Testament 
into  its  final  canonical  form.  These  writers,  for  sev- 
eral of  them  are  assumed,  went  over  the  whole  Old 
Testament  Scripture  already  in  existence,  and  re- 
edited  it.  The  history  was  filled  in,  the  mono- 
theistic idea  of  God  was  made  definite  in  its  ethical 
form,  and  the  one  central  place  of  worship  was 
insisted  on  by  the  Redactors.  The  later  books  and 
many  of  the  Psalms  only  came  into  existence  at  that 
time,  and  are  due  to  the  labors  of  these  nameless 


D  O  CUMENTAR  V  HYPO  THESIS.  119 

Redactors.  The  various  writers  who  belong  to 
the  school  of  "  R, "  are  further  denoted  as  "Rj, " 
"Ro, "    "R3,"   as  in  preceding  cases. 

The  sketch  of  the  various  documents  as  repre- 
sented by  the  symbols  described,  is  entirely  gen- 
eral in  its  nature.  According  to  the  theory  they 
represent,  the  Scriptures  become  a  curious  piece  of 
complicated  mosaic,  or,  as  some  would  prefer  to 
say,  a  section  of  stratified  rock  made  up  of  primary, 
secondary,  and  tertiary  formations.  If  details  of 
any  particular  phase  of  the  critical  theory  were 
given,  much  more  definite  statement  than  we  have 
space  for  would  have  to  be  made,  in  regard  es- 
pecially to  the  relations  between  the  various  docu- 
ments and  the  part  to  be  assigned  to  the  Redactors. 
We  would  have  to  point  out  that  "  P"  uses  Elohim 
also  as  far  as  Ex.  6:3.  This  is  based  upon  the  re- 
cent view  that  '  'P"  and  "E"  together  constitute  what 
was  by  the  earlier  critics  taken  to  be  a  single  docu- 
ment, and  called  the  "Elohist."  Some  suppose 
that  in  Gen.  2  :  3  the  Elohim  was  inserted  by  the 
Redactors,  and  that  the  original  document  be- 
longed to  "  J  "  not  to  "  J  E, "  this  latter  symbol  being 
used  ambiguously,  and  its  scope  quite  doubtful. 
This  is  specially  the  case  in  Wellhausen's  theory. 
Then  "R"  should  scarcely  be  placed  on  the  same 
plane  as  the  other  symbols,  for  the  reason  that  the 
Redactors  did  not  so  much  produce  any  new  docu- 
ments, as  recast  and  edit  already  existing  mate- 
rials.     But  the  whole  subject  of  the  documents  and 


120  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

their  supposed  combinations  is  an  endless  one. 
Still  it  is  by  this  method  that  the  critics  suppose 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  produced. 

It  is  in  this  way  that  the  doaiinenta)'y  hypothesis 
is  used  to  support  the  theory  of  composite  author- 
ship and  evolutionary  origin  of  the  Old  Testament 
writings.  In  accordance  with  this  theory,  re-ar- 
rangement of  the  literature  is  needed  in  order  to 
get  the  true  view  of  the  way  in  which  the  literature 
was  produced,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  the  re- 
ligious system  was  developed.  The  treatises  of  the 
radical  critics,  setting  forth  the  application  of  the 
documentary  theory,  are  curious  specimens  of  litera- 
ture and  will  make  capital  material  for  coming 
critics  to  exercise  their  skill  upon.  The  elaborate 
tables  in  Driver's  book  on  "  Introduction,"  seem  to 
us  to  be  not  so  much  bold  strokes  of  critical  sagacity, 
as  elegant  and  suitable  epitaphs  prepared  before- 
hand for  theories  which  we  feel  sure  are  doomed  to 
early  death.  So,  also,  the  attempt  of  Brown  and 
Driver  to  construct  a  Hebrew  lexicon  in  which  they 
use  the  symbols  above  described  to  designate  certain 
sections  of  the  Old  Testament,  seems  to  us  to  be  a 
great  risk  of  money  and  of  literary  reputation.  If 
in  coming  years  other  critics  rise  up  who  know  not 
the  present  critics,  and  if  these  critics  invent  new 
and  original  symbols,  the  present  learned  lexicon 
will  become  meaningless  and  useless.  It  will  then 
be  in  order  to  revive  it  reverently  from  its  sleep  in 


D  O  CUMENTAR  V  HYPO  THESIS.  1 21 

the    library,    and   lay   it    away   tenderly   in    a   case 
in  the  archseological  section  of  the  museum. 

But  this  chapter  must  close.  It  has  sought  to 
show  how  advanced  criticism  uses  the  documentary 
hypothesis  to  support  its  radical  position.  Further 
exposition  will  be  given  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  THREE  CODES. 

This  chapter  continues  the  exposition  of  the  vietJi- 
ods  of  procedure  which  advanced  criticism  follows  in 
seeking  to  establish  its  radical  conclusions.  In  the 
last  chapter  a  brief  account  of  the  way  in  which  the 
documentary  hypothesis  is  used  to  support  these 
conclusions  was  given.  Four  or  five  different  docu- 
ments, with  perhaps  a  dozen  minor  ones,  are  sup- 
posed to  have  been  used  in  the  production  of  the 
Scriptures  as  we  now  have  them  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  the  absence  of  any  knowledge  of  the 
names  of  the  authors  or  compilers  of  these  docu- 
ments, the  radical  critics  have  invented  certain 
symbols  by  which  to  denote  these  unknown  literary 
personages.  The  result  is  curious,  if  not  entirely 
fanciful.  If  we  were  to  place  these  symbols  side 
by  side,  so  as  to  denote  the  sum  total  of  the  docu- 
ments which  enter  into  the  Old  Testament  Script- 
ures, we  would  get  a  result  something  like  this  : 
.  .j"4_ "  E  "  +  " J  E"+ ' '  D  ".+*+3+"P"i+2+3+ '  'R  "i+--p= 
O.  T.  This  is  the  mathematics  of  the  methods  of  the 
radical  critics,  and  it  expresses  the  results  of  the 
use  of  the  documentary  hypothesis  in  a  nut-shell. 

[122] 


THE   THREE    CODES.  123 

It  is,   however,  still   an   unsolved  equation   in   the 
hands  of  radical  criticism. 

In  this  chapter  we  take  up  another  line  of  expo- 
sition, not  entirely  distinct  from  the  one  followed  in 
the  last.  This  line  consists  in  giving  some  ex- 
planation of  the  several  supposed  codes  of  ritual 
and  legislation  which  the  Mosaic  system  exhibits  as 
viewed  by  the  advanced  critics.  Just  as  they  main- 
tain that  a  variety  of  documents  makes  up  the  Old 
Testament  literature,  so  they  reason  at  great  length 
in  favor  of  a  succession  of  different  codes  or  schemes 
of  worship,  sacrificial  rites  and  legal  requirements. 
In  some  respects  this  is  the  very  core  of  the  radical 
theory.  The  hypothesis  of  the  codes  relates  to  the 
way  in  which  the  essential  elements  of  the  religion 
of  Israel  were  actually  developed.  The  method  in 
which  the  literature  was  produced  is  determined 
largely  by  the  deeper  question  of  the  way  in  which 
the  religious  system  of  the  Israelites  came  into  ex- 
istence. If  it  came  into  existence  in  a  purely 
natural  way,  as  the  radical  critics  argue,  then  the 
simpler  codes  will  be  first  and  the  more  elaborate 
later  on.  If  the  religion  of  Israel  is  the  product  of 
special  divine  communication,  then  a  different, 
likely  the  reverse,  order  may  be  expected.  Conse- 
quently, the  hypothesis  of  the  diversity  of  codes  of 
ritual,  worship,  and  legislation  is  a  fundamental 
position  of  the  advanced  critical  theory.  Such 
being  the  case,  careful  exposition  is  needed  at  this 
point. 


124  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

The  section  of  the  Old  Testament  which  lies 
specially  before  us  in  the  exposition  of  the  diversity 
and  successive  origin  of  the  several  codes  of  the 
Israelitish  religion  is  the  Pentateuch.  The  advanced 
critics  discover,  as  they  think,  from  a  careful  scru- 
tiny of  the  vast  mass  of  legislation  in  these  five 
books,  several  distinct  strata  of  laws  and  directions 
in  regard  to  religion,  which  have  come  successively, 
and  perhaps  at  considerable  intervals,  into  existence. 
The  law  was  not  given  by  Moses,  but  it  was  pro- 
duced by  evolution.  Through  three  or  four  distinct 
stages  this  evolution  can  be  traced,  according  to  the 
critics;  and  each  stage  has  left  the  proof  of  its 
existence  in  the  literature  as  described  in  the  last 
chapter.  With  microscopic  care,  the  vast  mass  of 
regulations  regarding  the  sacrifice,  worship;  and 
practical  life  of  the  Israelites  is  studied,  and  out  of 
the  supposed  chaos,  order  is  brought  by  means  of 
the  hypothesis  of  the  codes.  These  codes  must 
now  be  described. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  what  is  called  the  Cov- 
enant code.  This  is  the  earliest  and  simplest  of 
them  all,  and  shows  the  nature  of  the  cultus,  or 
worship,  in  its  first  or  germinal  stage.  This  code  is 
supposed  to  be  the  form  of  ritual  and  legislation  set 
forth  in  the  Jehovistic  historical  sections  of  the  Old 
Testament  literature.  In  particular,  it  is  set  forth 
in  Exodus  20-23.  In  this  passage  we  have  the  Ten 
Words  or  Torah,  as  they  are  sometimes  called,  as 
the  main  factor  in  the  Covenant  code.    In  addition, 


THE  THREE   CODES.  125 

there  are  certain  directions  regarding  the  kind  of 
altars  which  are  to  be  built,  and  about  certain  sec- 
rifices  to  be  offered  thereon.  There  is,  however, 
no  elaboration  of  priestly  ritual.  Then,  there  is  a 
mass  of  legislation  in  reference  to  practical  matters, 
such  as  masters  and  servants,  husbands  and  wives, 
parents  and  children,  neighbors  and  their  relations 
in  many  respects,  and  the  various  feasts  to  be  ob- 
served through  the  year.  There  is  not  much  about 
the  priests  and  their  duties,  but  a  great  deal  con- 
cerning the  people  and  their  relations  to  each  other 
in  this  code  of  the  Covenant,  and  the  critics  enlarge 
upon  these  things  at  great  length. 

But  there  is  no  settled  agreement  among  the  crit- 
ics in  regard  to  what  after  all  is  to  be  included  in 
the  Covenant  code.  Some  would  include  Exodus 
24,  also,  where  we  have  an  account  of  the  time 
when  Moses,  Aaron,  and  the  seventy  elders  were 
commanded  to  go  up  into  the  mountain,  and  of 
Moses  alone  being  asked  to  come  near  unto  God; 
and  when  we  are  also  told  that  they  obeyed,  and 
Moses  remained  for  forty  days  and  forty  nights  in 
the  mountain  with  God.  But  others  are  inclined  to 
the  opinion  that  the  Exodus  form  of  the  Torah 
should  include  only  the  statement  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments. This,  strictly  speaking,  is  the  Cove- 
nant code,  according  to  some  critics.  Then,  too, 
there  is  great  diversity  of  view  among  the  critics  as 
to  how  much  Moses  had  to  do  with  the  production 
of  this  code.     Some  only  allow  that  it  is  Mosaic  in 


12G  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

spirit,  but  assert  that  Moses  did  not  write  this 
Torah;  others  hold  that  the  code  and  its  record 
ahke  are  from  the  hand  of  Moses.  Hence,  even  in 
regard  to  the  precise  form  and  contents  of  this  sim- 
plest of  all  the  codes,  there  is  no  substantial  agree- 
ment among  the  critics  in  regard  to  the  main 
factors  of  the  theory  at  this  point. 

In  the  second  place,  the  critics  describe  what 
they  call  the  Deuteronomic  code.  In  a  general 
way,  the  contents  of  this  code  are  found  in  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy  or  the  second  law.  The  radical 
critics  point  out  how  this  book  differs  from  other 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  especially  from  Leviticus 
and  Numbers.  There  is,  they  say,  no  elaborate 
scheme  of  ritual  and  detailed  legislation  enjoined 
upon  the  people,  or  described  as  actually  in  vogue 
among  them  at  the  time  that  Deuteronomy  was 
written.  Emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  fact  that  the 
graded  priesthood  is  not  prominent,  and  that  pro- 
hibitions against  idolatry  abound  in  this  code. 
There  are  laws  in  it  which  are  not  found  in  any  of 
the  other  codes;  and,  in  general,  it  is  concluded  to 
be  essentially  different  from  the  others.  Here, 
again,  there  is  no  agreement  in  regard  to  important 
details,  but  into  an  exposition  of  these  particulars 
we  cannot  now  enter.  The  general  position  of 
radical  criticism  is  that  on  many  essential  points 
this  code  differs  so  greatly  from  the  others  that  they 
cannot  all  be  the  product  of  one  founder,  or  of  the 
same    historical    period.       The    critics    also    differ 


•  THE   THREE  CODES.  127 

greatly  in  regard  to  the  time  when  this  code  origi- 
nated, and'  as  to  the  author,  or  authors  by  whom 
it  was  written.  In  general,  it  is  held  by  most  ad- 
vanced critics  that  this  code  came  into  existence  a 
short  time  before  the  days  of  Josiah,  and  its  litera- 
ture is  contained  in  the  documents  known  by  the 
symbol  "  D,"  described  in  the  last  chapter. 

In  the  third  place,  the  critics  describe  another 
important  code  under  the  title  of  the  Priestly  code. 
The  record  of  this  is  found  in  the  latter  part  of 
Exodus,  in  the  whole  body  of  Leviticus,  and  in  a 
considerable  portion  of  Numbers.  There  is  much 
diversity  of  view  in  regard  to  what  portions  of  these 
three  books  set  forth  this  code.  Some  would  con- 
fine it  largely  to  Leviticus,  others  would  embrace  a 
good  deal  of  Exodus,  and  nearly  the  whole  of 
Numbers.  Speaking  generally,  this  code  comes  to 
us  with  documents  known  by  the  symbols  "  P"  and 
"R."  In  this  code  mature  Mosaism  in  the  full 
sense  of  the  term  appears.  Here  the  complete 
priestly  system,  the  elaborate  ritualistic  scheme, 
and  the  detailed  legislation  are  unfolded  ;  and  one 
central  place  of  worship,  definite  monotheism,  a 
complex  sacrificial  system,  the  annual  feasts,  the 
tabernacle  service,  and  all  the  other  elements  of 
mature  Mosaism  originate.  The  critics  also  are  in 
no  agreement  in  regard  to  many  important  particu- 
lars regarding  the  contents  of  this  code.  Some 
think  that  Ezra  and  others  of  his  day  had  the  chief 
part  in  this  important  task.      Others  argue  that  the 


128  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

men  who  lived  after  the  Exile,  and  who  completed 
the  Old  Testament  canon,  had  the  most  to  do  with 
the  unfolding  of  the  cultus  of  this  code,  and  in  the 
production  in  its  final  form  of  the  literature  in 
which  it  is  described  and  enjoined.  Others  think 
that  the  regulations  of  this  code  may  have  been 
in  existence  and  operation  in  earlier  times,  but 
were  only  reduced  to  writing  after  the  Exile  ;  and 
then  the  record  of  the  whole,  together  with  the 
history  accompanying  it,  was  thrown  back  and  con- 
nected \\\\\\  the  name  of  Moses.  But  on  this 
boundless  sea  of  critical  speculation  we  cannot  now 
embark. 

These,  then,  are  the  three  chief  codes  which  ad- 
vanced criticism  sets  forth  as  contributing  the  con- 
tents of  the  religion  of  Israel,  and  as  indicating  the 
manner  of  its  production  in  a  natural  way.  We  have 
the  Covenant,  the  Deuteronomic,  and  the  Priestly 
codes.  In  connection  with  the  last,  some  recent 
critics,  as  for  example  Driver,  are  inclined  to  make 
a  separate  code  of  Leviticus  17-26,  in  which  there 
seems  to  be  a  special  collection  of  laws  enjoining 
holiness  on  the  part  of  the  people.  This  they 
would  call  the  Laiv  of  Holiness,  and  give  it  an 
origin  of  its  own,  distinct  from  the  Priestly  code,  in 
the  very  heart  of  which  it  stands.  But  further  ex- 
position of  the  hypothesis  of  the  three  codes,  impor- 
tant as  it  is  in  itself,  is  impossible. 

To  conclude  this  chapter  we  only  add  that  the 
advanced  critics  argue  not  only  for  the  existence  of 


THE   THREE   CODES.  129 

these  three  codes,  but  that  they  are  so  divergent  in 
their  contents  as  to  be  from  different  hands,  and  to 
be  the  product  of  ages  widely  apart.  We  also  em- 
phasize the  fact  that  the  critics  are  greatly  divided 
in  regard  to  the  order  of  these  codes.  The  Well- 
hausen  school  hold  the  order  as  above  expounded, 
but  another  school,  represented  by  scholars  like 
Schrader  and  Dillmann,  advocate  the  view  that  the 
Priestly  code  goes  before  the  Deuteronomic  in  the 
order  of  time.  That  this  is  a  clear  concession  to 
the  true  position  is  evident,  and  this  order  certainly 
calls  for  a  revision  of  the  fundamental  positions  of 
the  Wellhausen  theory.  Again  we  see  that  the 
outstanding  feature  of  radical  criticism  is  diversity 
of  opinion. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SOME    GENERAL    FEATURES. 

In  the  last  chapter  the  hypothesis  of  tlie  tJirce 
codes  was  explained.  It  was  seen  that  advanced 
criticism  argues  that  there  were  three  distinct  codes 
of  ritual  and  legislation  in  the  development  of  the 
religious  system  of  the  Israelites.  These  three  are 
named  the  Covenant,  the  Deuteronomic,  and  the 
Priestly  codes.  They  are  held  to  be  so  different  in 
their  contents,  and  so  widely  separated  in  time  that 
they  cannot  have  come  from  the  hand  of  any  one 
man,  nor  have  all  appeared  in  the  era  of  Moses. 

In  this  chapter  some  further  exposition  of  the 
reasonings  by  which  this  position  is  supposed  to  be 
established  will  be  given.  In  our  judgment,  the 
hypothesis  of  the  three  codes  is  one  of  the  central 
factors  in  the  advanced  critical  position.  Some  are 
inclined  to  regard  the  Deuteronomic  code,  and  its 
place  in  the  order  of  development,  as  the  significant 
element  in  the  controversy.  Doubtless,  much  may 
be  said  in  favor  of  this  latter  view,  but  it  may  suf- 
fice for  our  present  purpose  to  look  upon  the  sup- 
position that  the  three  distinct  codes  came  into 
existence  centuries  apart,  as  the  very  heart  of  the 
[130] 


SOME  GENERAL  FEATURES.  131 

radical  theory.  This  being  the  case,  some  further 
explanation  of  this  position  and  of  the  reasons 
adduced  in  its  support  is  necessary. 

In  the  first  place,  on  the  literary  side,  the  critics 
deal  at  great  length  with  the  general  literary  feat- 
ures of  the  supposed  diverse  documents  in  which 
the  laws  of  the  several  codes  are  set  forth.  With 
the  most  wonderful  critical  insight  that  ingenious 
literary  criticism  has  ever  exhibited  these  documents 
are  inspected  and  dissected.  Then,  with  unbounded 
confidence,  judgment  is  pronounced  upon  words 
and  phrases,  upon  idioms  and  style  ;  and  various 
attempts  are  made  to  reconstruct  the  dissevered 
fragments  in  accordance  with  the  scheme  of  the 
three  codes  above  described.  As  the  result  of  this 
critical  treatment  of  the  literary  sources  of  the  vari- 
ous codes  the  critics  conclude  that  no  sort  of  unity 
or  contemporaneousness  among  them  is  possible. 
The  style  of  the  literature  of  the  several  codes 
varies  so  much  that  diversity  of  codes  and  com- 
posite origin  of  the  writings,  is  the  only  hypothesis 
which  meets  the  case,  in  the  judgment  of  the  critics. 
We  have  sometimes  wondered  whether  it  has  ever 
occurred  to  the  advanced  critics  that  they  first 
assume  these  codes,  and  then  proceed  to  discover 
as  they  think,  diversity  of  literary  features  to  such 
a  degree  that  they  cannot  observe  any  solid  basis 
of  unity  between  them  such  as  enables  the  critics 
to  reunite  what  by  hypothesis  they  have  needlessly 
severed  into  artificial  parts. 


132  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

In  the  second  place,  the  critics  lay  much  stress 
upon  the  fact  that  there  are  what  they  regard  as 
significant  omissions  in  some  of  the  codes,  and 
sorrie  even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  there  are 
inherent  contradictions  in  the  statements  of  the 
several  codes.  According  to  the  critical  view  on 
this  point  there  are  laws  and  regulations  peculiar 
to  each  of  the  codes.  The  Covenant  code  is  the 
simplest  in  its  form,  and  it  is  also  the  most  general 
in  its  contents.  In  it  there  is  no  gradation  in  the 
priesthood,  as  high  priest,  priests,  and  Levites,  nor 
is  there  any  elaboration  of  the  ritual  and  sacrificial 
scheme.  It  is  in  the  Deuteronomic  code  that  we 
find  distinct  directions  in  regard  to  a  central  place 
of  worship,  while  the  Covenant  code,  so  the  critics 
say,  allowed  worship  at  many  local  shrines.  So,  in 
like  manner,  strict  monotheism  as  an  actual  fact, 
with  all  the  elaboration  of  the  mature  Mosaic 
scheme,  did  not  appear  till  near  the  time  of  the 
Exile,  if  not,  indeed,  after  that  great  event.  Now, 
these  and  many  other  features  of  diversity  in  the 
contents  of  the  supposed  codes  are  taken  by  the 
advanced  critics  to  prove  their  theory  of  different 
codes,  widely  separated  as  to  the  date  of  their 
origin.  Our  space  entirely  forbids  an  adequate 
exposition  of  this  particular  point,  so  we  must  be 
content  with  these  general  explanations. 

In  the  third  place  the  advanced  critics  give  very 
great  prominence  to  what  took  place  in  the  days  of 
Josiah  and  during  his  reform.      For  some  time  prior 


SOME  GENERAL  FEATURES.  133 

to  this  reform  under  Josiah  the  people,  so  the  critics 
say,  had  been  observing  the  substance  of  the  regu- 
lations found  in  the  Deuteronomic  code  ;  but  about 
the  days  of  this  good  young  king  the  influence  of 
the  prophets  had  been  sensibly  felt  in  the  devel- 
opment of  religious  ideas,  and  in  the  production  of 
the  literature  of  that  code.  Accordingly,  what 
Josiah  did  was  not  so  much  to  effect  a  reform  in 
religion  so  as  to  lead  the  people  back  to  the  old  but 
forgotten  law  and  ritual,  but  his  great  work  was 
rather  to  originate  a  new  onward  movement  in  the 
religion  of  Israel.  It  is  from  this  view-point  that 
the  ' '  book  of  the  law  "  given  by  Moses,  which  was 
found  in  the  Temple  and  read  before  the  king,  is 
to  be  understood.  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan  were, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  critics,  the  authors  of  this 
book  of  the  law,  so  that  it  was  not  the  product  of 
Moses,  nor  of  the  Mosaic  era. 

Here  critical  opinion  follows  two  lines'  in  regard 
to  the  precise  m.anner  and  purpose  of  the  produc- 
tion of  this  book  of  the  law.  Some  regard  it  as  a 
praxis.  By  this  term  the  critics  mean  that  what 
had  hitherto  been  practiced  among  the  people  in 
the  way  of  religious  observances,  was  reduced  to 
written  form  for  the  first  time  by  Hilkiah,  Shaphan, 
and  others  of  Josiah's  day.  Hitherto  it  had  been 
unwritten  practice  or  custom;  at  Josiah's  day  it  be- 
came written  law  or  code.  In  this  way  the  book 
of  the  law  found  in  the  Temple  is  to  be  understood, 
and  the  name  of  Moses  was  attached  to  it  to  give  it 


134  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

additional  authority,  as  tradition  had  previously  as- 
sociated the  unwritten  praxis  with  the  name  of  this 
great  personage  of  the  Exodus. 

The  other  critical  view  of  this  book  of  the  law  is 
to  the  effect  that  it  was  a  rcfonii  programme,  rather 
than  an  unwritten  praxis.  It  looked  to  the  future 
and  affected  it,  rather  than  to  the  past  in  the  way 
just  described.  Hilkiah  and  other  earnest  men  of 
the  time  of  Josiah  drew  up  the  contents  of  this 
book  of  the  law,  and  promulgated  it  as  a  scheme 
according  to  which  the  religious  life  of  the  people 
was  to  be  shaped.  They  brought  it  to  the  king, 
then  a  young  man,  and  presented  it  to  him  as  the 
book  of  the  law  which  had  Mosaic  sanction,  but  did 
not  fully  inform  him  of  the  true  authorship  of  the 
book.  In  this  way  the  critics  maintain  that  the 
reform  under  Josiah  was  inaugurated,  and  the  Deu- 
teronomic  code  came  into  actual  observance  in 
connection  with  that  reform.  In  either  case  the 
Deuteronomic  code  is  not  Mosaic.  It  is  a  praxis, 
or  a  programme,  so  say  the  critics.  In  the  criti- 
cisms to  be  offered  in  future  chapters,  much  will 
have  to  be  said  in  regard  to  advanced  critical  opin- 
ion regarding  what  took  place  at  the  time  of  Josiah, 
and  in  the  age  immediately  prior  to  it. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  advanced  critics  enlarge 
on  the  things  which  took  place  in  the  days  of  Ezra, 
and  in  connection  with  the  restoration  from  the 
Exile.  In  some  respects,  this  is  the  most  impor- 
tant of  all  the  epochs  in  the  history  of  the  religion 


SOME   GENERAL   FEATURES.  135 

of  Israel,  according  to  the  advanced  critical  view. 
It  was  at  this  time  that  the  fully  developed  Mosaic 
system  appeared.  Prior  to  the  deportation  of  the 
people  in  the  great  captivity,  there  had  been  a 
general  observance  of  many  of  the  things  contained 
in  the  Priestly  code,  described  in  the  last  chapter, 
but  it  had  not  been  reduced  to  written  form. 
Idolatry  was  spoken  against  by  the  prophets  of 
the  days  before  the  Exile,  ethic  monotheism  was 
fully  developed,  worship  at  one  central  sanctuary 
was  enjoined,  and  a  very  elaborate  priesthood  and 
ritual  had  come  into  existence.  During  the  Exile, 
according  to  some  critics  or  just  after  it  according 
to  others,  Ezra  and  the  earnest  spirits  associated 
with  him  drew  up  the  complete  Priestly  code  in 
written  form.  This  was  observed  by  the  people 
after  the  Exile,  and  soon  developed  into  the  rigid 
and  formal  Judaism  of  the  century  prior  to  the 
advent  of  Jesus  Christ.  Half  a  dozen  chapters 
would  not  suffice  to  give  more  than  a  summary  of 
all  that  the  critics  have  set  forth  at  this  point,  in 
their  advocacy  of  the  reconstructive  theories.  This 
exceedingly  meager  statement,  however,  must  suf- 
fice, and  it  may  be  enough  to  provide  at  least  a 
basis  for  future  criticism. 

In  the  fifth  place,  many  of  the  critics  give  a 
peculiar  place  and  prominence  to  the  wonderful 
vision  of  Ezekiel,  which  is  found  in  the  closing 
chapters  of  his  prophecy,  beginning  with  the  forti- 
eth.     The  scope  and  imagery  of  this  vision  need 


180  RADICAL    CRTTICISM. 

to  be  pondered  by  the  hour  to  feel  its  grandeur  and 
power.  In  a  vision,  Ezekiel,  under  the  guidance 
of  some  angehc  being,  beheld  a  magnificent  city. 
In  it  there  is  a  splendid  temple,  most  elaborately 
furnished  in  every  respect  for  its  purpose,  and 
ornamented  most  exquisitely.  Then  in  the  temple 
there  is  an  altar,  forth  from  which  a  stream  of 
water  flowed  that  soon  became  deep  and  wide, 
making  fruitful  all  the  regions  whither  it  flowed. 
Then,  in  connection  with  the  temple,  there  is  an 
elaborate  sacrificial  system  exhibited,  and  even  a 
division  of  the  land  among  the  twelve  tribes  is  al- 
luded to.  But  the  whole  account  of  the  vision 
must  be  read  to  be  appreciated  in  this  connection. 
No  brief  description  can  do  it  justice. 

Now,  one  influential  school  of  radical  critics  lays 
much  store  by  this  vision.  They  make  it  the  tran- 
sition between  the  Deuteronomic  code  and  the 
Priestly  code.  Here  they  say  we  have  all  the 
elaboration  of  the  ritual  and  sacrificial  system  which 
is  found  in  the  Priestly  code,  and  that  originated 
about  the  days  of  Ezra.  From  the  way  the  critics 
speak  of  this  vision,  we  almost  receive  the  impres- 
sion that  they  regard  it  as  having  actually  existed 
as  an  observed  ritual  system  among  the  people, 
whereas  there  does  not  appear  to  be  the  slightest 
evidence  that  the  contents  of  this  vision  were  ever 
observed,  or  even  intended  for  observance,  under 
the  religious  system  of  Israel.  Nay,  more,  perhaps 
a  strong  case  can  be  made  out  for  the  opinion  that 


SOME   GENERAL   FEATURES.  137 

the  contents  of  this  most  wonderful  vision  have 
meaning  only  under  the  assumption  that  the  so- 
called  Priestly  code  was  an  actual  fact  among  the 
people  prior  to  the  days  of  Ezekiel.  Our  criticism 
later  on  must  lay  hold  of  this  point,  and  sift  the 
critical  view  carefully. 

In  the  last  place,  this  may  be  the  best  stage  to 
note  the  fact  that  the  advanced  critical  theory 
maintains  that  the  idea  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its 
ritual  had  no  existence  till  about  the  Exile.  There 
may  have  been,  we  are  told,  some  sort  of  a  tent, 
and  perhaps  the  ark  or  something  like  it,  but  the 
notion  of  the  Tabernacle  with  its  services  as  set 
forth  in  the  Priestly  code  did  not  exist  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  history  of  the  religion  of  the  people  of 
Israel,  but  it  was  an  inference  from  the  Temple. 
Instead  of  the  Temple  being  an  expansion  of  the 
Tabernacle,  the  Tabernacle  was  the  Temple  in 
miniature  and  projected  back  to  the  days  of  Moses 
in  an  idealized  form.  So  in  like  manner  the  great 
Annual  Feasts  are  of  quite  late  origin.  They  do 
not  date  back  to  the  era  of  Moses,  and  they  do  not 
originate  from  his  hand.  Both  of  these  points  will 
come  prominently  forward  for  criticism  ere  long  in 
the  course  of  this  work.  In  the  meantime  this 
mere  statement  must  conclude  this  chapter.  The 
exposition  will  be  completed  in  one  or  two  addi- 
tional chapters;  then  the  real  task  of  the  criti- 
cal examination  of  these  radical  theories  will  be 
begun. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    HISTORY. 

The  last  chapter  opened  up  several  lines  of  state- 
ment and  reasoning  by  means  of  which  the  ad- 
vanced critical  theory,  and  especially  the  hypothesis 
of  the  three  codes,  is  supposed  to  be  established. 
At  the  close  of  the  chapter  two  important  factors 
in  the  critical  theory  were  merely  mentioned.  The 
one  was  the  contention  that  the  Tabernacle  did  not 
exist,  and  the  other  the  supposition  that  the  great 
annual  feasts  did  not  originate,  or  at  least  come  to 
be  generally  observed,  till  late  in  the  religious  his- 
tory of  Israel.  This  follows  naturally  from  the 
terms  of  the  theory.  The  Tabernacle  service  and 
the  annual  feasts  were  connected  specially  with  the 
Priestly  code.  This  code,  according  to  the  critics, 
did  not  come  to  be  generally  observed  till  about  the 
time  of  Ezra,  which  of  course  was  quite  late  in  the 
history  of  the  national  life  of  Israel.  Consequently, 
the  idea  of  the  Tabernacle  succeeds  the  Temple  ; 
and  the  great  feasts,  such  as  the  day  of  Atonement, 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
had  no  place  in  early  times.  These  factors  of  the 
theory  will  call  for  careful  examination  when  we 
proceed  with  our  criticism. 


THE  HISTORY.  139 

This  chapter  deals  with  a  single  additional  feature 
of  the  advanced  critical  position.  That  feature  re- 
lates to  the  explanation  of  the  history  which  we 
find  running  side  by  side  with  the  ritual  and  legisla- 
tion of  the  several  supposed  codes.  The  question 
here  is  this  :  How  is  the  history  to  be  accounted 
for  and  harmonized  with  the  outlines  of  the  critical 
theory  .''  This,  moreover,  is  one  of  the  real  difficul- 
ties with  which  the  radical  theory  has  to  contend. 
That  theory  claims  to  be  strictly  historical  ;  and 
yet,  when  from  the  basis  of  its  theory  concerning 
the  development  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  it  at- 
tempts to  interpret  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  it  is  compelled  to  rearrange  the  materi- 
als of  the  history  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  really  a 
reconstruction  of  the  history,  in  accordance  with 
the  necessities  of  the  theory.  This  chapter  can 
only  give  a  few  hints  as  to  the  way  in  which  the 
history  is  treated  by  radical  critics. 

In  the  first  place,  the  critics  point  out  what  they 
suppose  to  be  two  concurrent  lines  of  history  quite 
distinct  from  each  other,  running  through  the  Old 
Testament.  In  the  one  prophetical,  in  the  other, 
priestly  features  are  prominent  ;  and,  while  concur- 
rent, the  critics  often  represent  them  as  inconsistent 
at  various  points.  Speaking  generally,  the  former 
consists  of  the  books  from  Genesis  to  the  end  of 
the  book  of  Kings  ;  the  latter  includes  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah.  In  both  cases  pre-existing 
materials   in    documentary  form    have    been    used. 


140  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

The  one  corresponds  in  general  with  the  "J  E  " 
and  "  D  "  narratives,  and  is  built  on  the  Covenant 
code  ;  the  other  agrees  in  the  main  with  the  "  P  " 
and  "R"  narratives,  and  implies  the  existence  of 
the  Priest's  code.  There  is  endless  diversity  of 
opinion  among  the  critics  concerning  the  details  of 
view  in  regard  to  these  two  lines  of  history,  as  they 
suppose  them  to  be,  and  in  regard  to  the  relations 
which  they  sustain  to  each  other. 

In  the  second  place,  the  critics  make  another 
important  three-fold  distinction  which  bears  upon 
the  historical  sections  of  the  Old  Testament.  They 
distinguish  between  the  origin  of  the  ritual  and 
other  laws,  the  codification  of  these  laws,  and  the 
zvriting  of  the  law  books  in  their  final  form,  with 
the  history  interwoven.  With  more  or  less  defi- 
niteness,  the  critics  make  these  distinctions.  Some- 
times the  distinction  is  two-fold  instead  of  three-fold 
in  the  hands  of  the  critics.  According  to  this  view, 
the  origin  and  observance  of  the  laws  are  distin- 
guished from  the  literature  in  which  the  record  of 
these  laws  and  ritual  requirements  is  now  found. 
But  the  latest  form  of  critical  theory  announces  the 
distinction  to  be  three-fold  in  its  nature  as  above 
noted,  and  it  makes  use  of  this  in  its  effort  to  ex- 
plain the  historical  narratives  which  run  parallel 
with  the  ritual  and  legal  factors  of  Mosaism. 

According  to  the  first  of  these  stages  of  codifica- 
tion, the  laws  and  ritual  observances  are  viewed  as 
coming    into  existence   among  the  people   but  re- 


THE  HISTORY.  141 

maining  in  a  disconnected,  unclassified  form,  and 
entirely  unwritten.  They  were  little  more  than 
customs  made  definite  and  handed  down  in  a  tra- 
ditional way.  In  the  second  stage,  these  laws  or 
customs,  having  gradually  become  numerous  and 
complex,  were  reduced  to  an  orderly  form,  and 
classified  into  what  are  called  distinct  codes  by  the 
critics.  At  this  stage,  some  of  these  laws  thus 
codified  were  reduced  to  writing,  but  were  not  yet 
arranged  in  a  connected  narrative.  In  the  third 
stage  these  laws,  as  codified  and  traditionally  ob- 
served, were  reduced  to  definite  written  form  in 
later  times.  This  was  done  partly  for  the  conven- 
ience of  the  priests  who  were  to  administer  the 
ritual,  and  partly  to  fix  definitely  the  priestly  form 
of  the  ciiltiis  as  distinguished  from  the  prophetical. 
It  is  with  the  last  stage  that  the  historical  ele- 
ments of  the  Old  Testament  are,  the  critics  think, 
to  be  largely  connected.  There  were  certain  tradi- 
tional factors  in  the  life  of  the  nation,  historical  in 
their  nature  ;  and  in  the  later  stages  of  the  national 
career  these  were  written  up  long  after  the-events 
happened,  and  in  this  way  the  history  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  -later  semi-ideal  product.  It  was  not 
written  at  the  time,  but  most  of  it  took  written 
form  long  after  the  events  actually  happened,  just 
as  the  laws  were  reduced  to  written  form  long  after 
their  origin  and  observance.  In  subsequent  criti- 
cism this  is  a  point  to  which  careful  attention  must 
be  given. 


142  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

In  the  third  place,  in  regard  to  the  precise  mode 
by  which  the  history  came  to  be  thus  written,  the 
advanced  critics  have  some  remarkable  things  to 
say.  It  is  at  this  point,  too,  that  their  theory 
suffers  one  of  its  severest  strains  in  relation  to  the 
history  which  it  must  in  some  way  account  for.  If 
the  narratives  which  have,  as  they  now  stand,  such 
definite  historical  form,  came  into  existence  at  the 
late  date  which  the  radical  theory  asserts,  then  the 
question  is,  how  is  the  clear-cut  historical  form  of 
these  narratives  to  be  accounted  for  ?  The  strain 
upon  the  theory  at  this  point  is  so  great  that  the 
critics  are  driven  to  remarkable  expedients  in  order 
to  give  a  show  of  plausibility  to  their  speculations. 
A  mere  statement  of  these  expedients  will  not  only 
exhibit  what  they  are,  but  also  indicate  how  great 
is  their  weakness  and  superficiality,  and  will  show 
how  desperate  the  necessities  of  the  theory  which 
calls  for  such  support  must  really  be. 

Some  critics  give  what  may  be  called  the  tradi- 
tional explanation  of  the  historical  narratives.  By 
this  explanation  it  is  set  forth  that  the  main  body 
of  the  events  actually  happened,  but  that  the  knowl- 
edge of  them  was  for  many  ages  handed  down  from 
generation  to  generation  by  oral  tradition.  Like 
all  tradition  it  would  undergo  certain  modifications 
and  receive  constant  additions,  so  that  in  the  later 
ages  of  the  national  life  of  Israel  there  existed  a 
great  body  of  tradition  which  was  then  reduced  to 
written  form.      But  in  it  all,  while  there  may  have 


THE  HISTORY.  113 

been  a  basis  of  fact,  there  was  also  much  that  is 
traditional  if  not  mythical  in  the  supposed  historical 
sections  of  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  as  it 
now  stands. 

Other  critics  give  what  may  be  called  2.  fictitious 
account  of  the  historical  sections  of  this  literature. 
In  it  we  have,  according  to  this  view,  not  a  record 
of  real  events,  nor  the  later  transcription  of  oral 
tradition,  but  an  entirely  fictitious  product.  Ac- 
cording to  some,  this  fictitious  history  was  produced 
by  later  post-exilic  scribes  to  fill  in  the  legal  and 
ritual  codes,  which  had  by  that  time  been  reduced 
to  written  form.  By  other  critics,  the  free  and 
natural  play  of  the  imagination  of  these  scribes 
working  alongside  of  the  ritual  system,  produced 
these  historical  narratives.  In  the  former  case, 
they  are  intentional,  and  in  the  latter,  spontaneous 
products.  But  in  both  cases  their  real  historicity 
is  ignored. 

That  this  general  view  of  the  history  is  revolu- 
tionary is  self-evident.  According  to  it,  we  have 
in  the  Old  Testament  not  real  history,  but  tradi- 
tion or  fiction,  or  a  mixture  of  both.  The  supposed 
persons,  places,  and  events  are  imaginary,  not  real; 
and  the  alleged  authors  of  these  books  never  wrote 
them,  but  their  origin  is  due  to  the  mythical  in- 
stinct, poetical  genius,  or  dramatic  power  of  some 
nameless  scribes  who  lived  and  wrote  in  the  degen- 
erate era  after  the  Exile.  Were  it  not  that  we  find 
this  theory  set  forth  in   professedly  learned   books, 


144  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

we  could  not  have  believed  that  such  a  forced  in- 
terpretation of  what  seems  to  be  very  distinctly 
marked  history,  was  to  be  discovered  anywhere. 
But  we  have  it  here  in  the  writings  of  radical  critics. 

It  is  in  this  connection  that  emphasis  is  laid  by 
some  critics  upon  what  is  called  pscudonyinous  aii- 
thorship.  Others  call  it  literary  fiction,  which  they 
claim  was  a  common  thing  in  those*  early  days  when 
no  copyrights  existed.  According  to  this  view, 
these  later  authors  to  whose  hands  the  historical 
books  owe  their  origin,  attached  the  names  of  some 
great  men  of  ancient  times  to  their  writings  to  give 
them  more  weight.  These  ancient  and  weighty 
men  are  represented  as  speaking  and  acting  in  the 
historical  events  de.scribed.  The  name  of  Moses,  in 
a  somewhat  dramatic  manner  having  acquired  much 
traditional  prominence,  was  the  name  to  which 
much  of  the  history,  and  most  of  the  ritual  system 
associated  therewith,  were  ascribed.  Thus,  by  a 
pious  fraud,  called  by  the  milder  name  of  literary 
artifice,  or  by  the  pretentious  term  pseudonymous 
authorship,  the  historical  setting  of  the  ritual  sys- 
tem of  the  religion  of  Israel  is  sketched  ;  or  perhaps 
we  ought  more  truly  to  say,  that  the  history  was 
dramatized.  Of  this  we  shall  have  something  to 
say  in  future  criticism  upon  this  topic. 

The  result,  then,  is  that  the  history  no  longer  re- 
mains history.  At  best  it  is  but  tradition  ;  perhaps 
most  of  it  is  fiction,  as  some  say.  The  history  is 
the    free    creation    of   post-exilic    times.      Under 


THE  HISTORY.  145 

the  exigencies  of  the  radical  theory  of  the  ritual 
system,  the  history  is  first  destroyed  in  order  that 
it  may  be  rebuilt  in  accordance  with  the  architect- 
ural requirements  of  that  theory.  The  narratives 
are  not,  as  they  now  stand,  a  correct  expression  of 
the  development  of  the  religion.  Hence  the  narra- 
tives must  be  reconstructed  to  fit  the  theory.  The 
work  of  editing  and  re-editing  has  gone  on,  till  al- 
most all  semblance  of  historical  material  in  the 
narratives  has  passed  away.  That  such  an  attempt 
should  be  made  in  the  name  of  historical  criticism 
to  explain  Abraham,  Moses,  Joshua,  David,  Josiah, 
Isaiah,  Hosea,  Ezra,  and  otlier  personages,  must 
ever  remain  as  one  of  the  literary  wonders  of  the 
nineteenth  century  fitted  only  to  be  classed  along 
with  Donnelly's  Baconian  theory  of  Shakespeare. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE    PROPHETS    AND    THE    PSALMS. 

We  are  now  nearing  the  end  of  the  exposition  of 
the  literary  and  historical  methods  of  advanced 
criticism  which  it  was  our  purpose  to  make.  The 
last  chapter  sought  to  show  how  the  history  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  to  be  understood  in  the  light  of 
the  radical  critical  theory.  This  chapter  will  seek 
to  explain  how  the  propJicts  and  their  work  are  to 
be  understood,  and  the  place  which  the  Psalms  are 
to  be  given  by  the  theory  under  consideration. 
With  this  chapter  the  direct  exposition  will  thereby 
be  concluded. 

In  a  former  chapter  it  was  hinted  that  the  ad- 
vanced critical  theory  puts  the  prophets  before  the 
law,  and  so  would  read,  ' '  The  Prophets  and  the 
Law"  instead  of  "The  Law  and  the  Prophets." 
The  real  meaning  of  this  must  now  be  unfolded, 
and  in  this  way  the  view  of  the  place  and  the  work 
of  the  prophets  in  the  development  of  the  religion 
of  Israel  may  be  best  exhibited,  according  to  the 
critical  theory  now  under  consideration. 

In  the  first  place,  in  order  to  understand  the 
position  of  advanced  criticism  in  regard  to  the 
prophets,  we  must  keep  in  mind  what  that  criticism 
[146] 


PROPHETS  AND  PSALMS.  147 

holds  in  regard  to  the  general  status  of  religious 
ideas  and  observances  at  the  time  when  the  great 
prophets,  who  have  given  us  important  written 
prophecies,  lived  and  exercised  their  religious  in- 
fluence. In  general,  the  critical  theory  maintains 
that  the  religious  life  and  the  ritual  observances  of 
Israel  were  a  gradual  growth.  At  first  it  was  the 
simple  worship  of  Jehovah,  offered  at  many  places 
throughout  the  land.  In  this  early  stage  the  rites 
were  few  and  by  no  means  elaborate.  Perhaps 
some  of  them  were  forms  of  nature  worship  which 
were  by  degrees  adapted  to  the  religious  conditions 
of  Israel  in  Canaan. 

Then,  in  particular,  when  the  early  wr/V/';/^  proph- 
ets, as  they  have  been  called,  appeared,  they  found 
the  religious  ideas  of  the  people  quite  crude,  and 
their  cultns  far  from  mature.  The  great  work  of 
these  prophets  was  to  do  much  toward  tlio  advance- 
ment of  the  religious  life  of  the  people,  rather  than 
to  bring  the  people  back  to  an  old  ideal  from  which 
they  had  wandered.  Previous  to  the  writing  proph- 
ets there  had  been  oral  prophets  in  earlier  days, 
who  partly  paved  the  way  for  the  work  of  the  men 
whose  prophetic  words  have  been  put  on  permanent 
record  in  the  Scriptures.  Such  were  Elijah  and 
Elisha. 

But  the  men  who  effected  most  for  the  religion 
of  Israel  were  men  like  Hosea,  Jonah,  and  Amos, 
in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  ;  and  like  Isaiah,  Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel,  Micah,  and  Joel,  in  the  kingdom  of 


148  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Judah.  Through  the  teaching  of  these  men  it  came 
to  pass  that  ethical  monotheism  was  developed, 
and  that  the  people  were  led  to  worship  at  one 
central  sanctuary.  At  this  time,  also,  and  by  the 
influence  of  the  writing  prophets,  the  legislation 
and  ritual  system  came  into  general  observance 
among  the  people.  Prior  to  their  time,  this  elabo- 
rate ritual  had  really  no  existence,  and  the  teaching 
of  some  of  these  prophets  is  such  as  to  discounte- 
nance, rather  than  to  foster  the  observance  of  the 
ritual  system.  These  prophets  lived  from  six  to 
eight  centuries,  b.  c.  ,  and  from  their  writings  the 
critics  argue  that  the  Deuteronomic  and  especially 
the  Priestly  codes  were  not  then  in  existence,  for 
these  prophets  say  little  about  the  contents  of  these 
codes.  Arguing  from  the  fact  of  this  silence,  they 
hastily  conclude  that  these  codes  were  not  in  exist- 
ence to  be  observed  by  the  people.  These  proph- 
ets paved  the  way  for  the  developments  which  took 
place  in  Josiah's  day  and  at  the  time  of  Ezra,  when 
the  law,  in  its  fully  developed  form,  came  into  ex- 
istence and  observance.  Of  course  different  critics 
give  different  explanations  of  the  influence  of  these 
and  subsequent  prophets  ;  but  the  main  thing  to 
keep  in  mind  is  that  the  advanced  critical  theory 
denies  that  the  priestly  code,  or  Torah,  was  in  ex- 
istence eight  centuries  B.  c. ,  that  is,  in  the  days  of 
Hosea  and  Amos  in  particular.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  the  theory  asserts  that  the  law,  in  its  com- 
pleted form,   at  least,   came  into  common  observ- 


PROPHETS  AND   PSALMS.  149 

ance,  if  not  into  actual  existence,  only  after  the 
prophets  had  exercised  their  potent  influence.  The 
law  is  thus  post-prophetic. 

In  this  way  the  meaning  of  the  statement  that 
the  order  of  development  is  from  the  prophets  to  the 
law,  not  from  the  law  to  the  prophets,  is  to  be  ex- 
plained. The  real  authors  of  the  mature  Mosaic 
system  are  the  prophets,  especially  the  writing 
prophets.  Directly,  by  their  teaching,  they  devel- 
oped monotheistic  belief  and  unity  in  the  place  of 
worship.  This  centralization  was  naturally  fol- 
lowed by  an  elaboration  of  ritual  at  the  one  sanctu- 
ary, and  thus,  indirectly,  the  prophets  prepared  the 
way  for  the  introduction  of  the  priestly  or  Levitical 
code.  It  will  be  observed  that  this  order  of  the 
prophets  and  the  law,  grows  out  of  the  necessities 
of  the  theor)'  of  three  codes,  which  puts  the  Priestly 
code  about  the  days  of  Ezra,  when  the  great  work 
of  the  prophets  was  virtually  over.  How  curious 
the  procedure  of  the  critics  is  at  this  point  !  Again 
and  again  the  attempt  is  made  to  construct  an 
elaborate  theory  on  a  very  slender  basis  of  fact  ; 
and  having  propounded  the  theory,  it  is  even  used 
to  determine  what  the  facts  must  have  been. 

In  connection  with  the  work  of  the  prophets  an- 
other thing  may  be  mentioned.  The  advanced 
critics  make  their  analysis  of  the  prophetical  writ- 
ing very  much  as  they  do  of  those  writings  which 
exhibit  the  several  codes.  Prophecies  which  have 
been  supposed  all  along  to  be  complex  wholes  are 


150  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

cut  in  twain,  or  if  the  case  requires,  are  divided 
into  a  number  of  sections.  Thus  Isaiah  is  severed 
into  two,  and  Zechariah  is  served  in  the  same  way. 
The  supposed  dates  are  assigned  to  the  several 
parts,  even  though  the  critics  do  not  know  the 
names  of  the  authors  of  the  later  sections.  Daniel 
is  carried  away  forward  to  the  era  of  the  Maccabees, 
as  also  are  other  writings  which  have  always  been 
regarded  as  pre-exilic.  The  reason  given  for  this 
high-handed  critical  procedure  is  that  these  parts 
of  the  prophecies,  such  as  the  later  part  of  Isaiah 
and  of  Zechariah,  could  not  have  been  written  un- 
til the  ritual  of  the  Priestly  code  had  come  into 
vogue  among  the  people,  as  it  did  only  a  short  time 
prior  to  the  Exile.  Then,  too,  passages  or  allusions 
in  the  prophets  which  seem  inconsistent  with  the 
terms  of  the  radical  theory,  are  branded  as  inter- 
polations from  a  later  age,  and  so  are  cast  aside. 
In  a  word,  the  theory  must  rule,  no  matter  what 
becomes  of  the  facts  in  the  case. 

A  few  paragraphs  must  be  added  in  regard  to  the 
way  in  which  advanced  criticism  deals  with  the 
Psalms.  As  the  theory  was  pushed  forward  to  its 
logical  conclusion  by  its  advocates,  and  especially 
as  the  evolutionary  principles  involved  in  the  hy- 
pothesis of  the  three  codes  were  unfolded,  it  soon 
became  evident  that  the  profound  religious  ideas 
and  sentiments  expressed  in  the  Psalter  could  not 
be  easily  harmonized  with  the  stage  which  the  evo- 
lution had  actually  reached  in  the  days  of  David, 


PROPHETS  AND   PSALMS.  151 

the  period  when  many  of  these  very  Psalms  are 
supposed  to  have  come  into  existence.  This  was 
long  prior  to  the  days  of  Josiah  and  Ezra,  and  it 
was  not  till  their  days  that  the  religious  system 
reached  its  maturity,  according  to  the  radical  crit- 
ical view.  The  religious  contents  of  the  Psalms  are 
consequently  before  their  proper  time  if  we  retain 
the  commonly  received  view  that  most  of  them  be- 
long to  the  age  of  David  and  Solomon.  Hence 
the  critics  place  the  origin  of  very  many  of  these 
Psalms  at  or  after  the  time  of  Ezra. 

But  the  skill  and  boldness  of  the  critics  are 
quite  equal  to  the  task  thus  presented.  Instead  of 
revising  their  theory  in  such  a  way  as  to  do  justice 
to  the  religious  elements  in  the  Psalms,  they  put 
the  Psalms  on  the  rack  of  radical  criticism.  The 
result  is  that  the  Davidic  authorship  of  most  of  the 
Psalms  is  denied,  and  the  date  of  their  production 
is  brought  down  to  the  period  after  the  Exile,  and 
subsequently  to  the  elaboration  of  the  Priestly  code 
and  its  observance  among  the  people. 

Indeed,  some  of  the  critics  go  so  far  as  to  say 
that  none  of  the  Psalms  were  put  in  their  present 
form  till  after  the  days  of  Ezra.  Such  critics 
merely  admit  that  the  simple  elements  of  some  of 
them  may  have  existed  among  the  people  prior  to 
that  great  epoch,  just  as  the  elements  of  the  Iliad 
of  Homer  existed  among  the  early  Greeks.  These 
elements  were  not  yet  crystallized,  but  only  held  in 
solution  in  a  mythical  age.     But  the  critics  con- 


152  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

tend  that  the  Psahns,  as  we  now  have  them,  are  of 
late  date,  which  means  that  they  must  have  come 
into  existence  chiefly  after  the  Priestly  code  was 
produced.  The  critics,  in  this  cormection,  like  to 
speak  of  the  Psalter  as  the  praise  book  of  the  sec- 
ond Temple,  forgetful  of  what  the  history  says 
about  the  musical  service  of  the  first  Temple  being 
very  extensive,  and  entirely  consistent  with,  if  in- 
deed not  requiring  the  contents  of  the  completed 
Psalter.  Here  the  order  which  the  advanced  crit- 
ics give  us  is  the  Prophets,  the  Law,  and  the 
Psalms,  instead  of  that  which  our  Lord  himself 
suggests  in  the  last  chapter  of  Luke,  as  the  Law, 
Prophets,  and  Psalms.  But  the  theory  demands 
this  order,  and  so  the  critics  insist  that  the  theory 
must  rule.  Later  on,  we  shall  examine  the  posi- 
tion of  advanced  criticism  in  regard  to  the  Psalms, 
and  we  may  then  be  able  not  only  to  set  it  aside, 
but  also  to  find  materials  in  those  Psalms  which 
are  admitted  to  be  of  Davidic  origin  to  refute  the 
hypothesis  of  the  three  codes,  which,  as  we  have 
already  said,  is  the  very  heart  and  core  of  the 
whole  critical  structure. 

Thus  we  see  more  and  more  clearly  the  tendency 
of  the  advanced  critical  theory  to  bring  down  to  as 
recent  a  date  as  possible  all  those  parts  of  Script- 
ure, whether  they  be  history,  prophecy,  or  Psalm, 
which  contain  distinct  allusions  to  the  contents  of 
the  Priestly  code.  The  reason  for  this  obviously  is 
that  by  hypothesis  it  is  assumed  that  this  code  did 


PROPHETS  AND  PSALMS.  158 

not  come  into  existence  till  about  the  time  of  the 
Exile,  and  in  the  light  of  this  assumption  the  parts 
of  the  literature  which  contain  these  allusions  must 
either  be  interpolations  by  some  late  hand,  or  the 
whole  writing-  is  of  more  recent  origin  than  is  gener- 
ally supposed. 

But  at  this  point  our  exposition  of  the  methods 
of  advanced  criticism  must  close.  The  reader  is 
doubtless  glad  that  we  have  brought  him  to  the 
end  of  the  long  and  tedious  journey,  even  if  he  has 
been  willing  to  follow  us  thus  far  through  the  mazes 
of  the  various  factors  of  the  critical  theory.  This 
exposition  nevertheless  has  not  been  sufficient  to 
set  forth  the  theory  with  details  of  illustration. 
Still  we  would  fain  hope  that  what  has  been  said 
may  provide  a  sufficient  basis  upon  which  criticism 
may  be  intelligently  made  for  the  reader.  With  the 
next  chapter  we  invite  the  reader  to  embark  with  us 
on  what  may  be  termed  a  voyage  of  observation 
and  discovery,  in  the  course  of  which  by  careful  in- 
spection we  hope  to  find  many  things  new  and  old 
which  may  enable  him  to  make  a  careful  estimate 
of  the  critical  theory,  and  which  may  help  him  to 
obtain  an  intelligent  view  of  the  main  defects  by 
which  it  is  to  be  distinguished. 


PART  IV. 


CRITICAL  EXAMINATION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

With  this  chapter  we  begin  the  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  advanced  critical  theory,  whose  main 
positions  have  been  somewhat  briefly  explained. 
Three  chapters  have  been  devoted  to  introductory 
explanations  ;  in  five,  a  short  history  of  radical 
criticism  h*as  been  given  ;  and  in  nine  chapters  an 
attempt  has  been  made  to  give  an  exhibit  of  the 
chief  features  of  radical  criticism.  With  these 
chapters  before  us,  we  venture  to  hope  that  we 
are  in  a  position  to  enter  upon  a  careful  review 
of  this  particular  critical  theory.  To  do  anything 
like  justice  to  this  task  even  in  a  brief  and  popular 
manner  nearly  a  score  of  chapters  will  be  required. 
The  present  one  will  be  almost  entirely  preliminary 
in  its  nature. 

In  dealing  with  this  very  extensive  and  many- 
sided  subject,  it  is  of  much  importance  to  have  a 
clear  conception  of  the  methods  according  to  which 
a  proper  examination  of  advanced  Higher  Criticism 
should  be  pursued.  In  previous  chapters,  we  were 
careful  to  ascertain  the  methods  of  advanced  criti- 
cism ;  and  now,  when  we  undertake  to  enter  upon 
the  review  of  that  criticism,  we  ourselves  should  be 

[157] 


158  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

exceedingly  careful  to  adopt  and  follow  sound  victJi- 
ods  of  procedure.  We  should  keep  in  mind  the 
adage  about  people  who  live  in  glass  houses  throwing 
stones.  If,  therefore,  we  may  cast  some  stones  in 
the  way  of  criticism  of  the  radical  critical  theory. 
we  would  take  diligent  care  that  our  general  method 
is  not  like  a  glass  house. 

In  the  first  place,  we  wish  to  emphasize  our  firm 
conviction  that  the  present  current  debate  between 
conservative  and  radical  criticism  is  one  of  great 
importance  in  itself,  and  of  vast  moment  to  the 
Christian  system.  Between  the  two  opposing 
schools  of  criticism  the  difference  is,  in  our  judg- 
ment, not  merely  one  of  details  but  of  underlying 
principles.  The  attitude  of  the  tvv^o  schools  is  es- 
sentially different  in  regard  to  the  view  held  con- 
cerning the  very  foundations  of  the  religion  of  Israel. 
If  conservative  views  in  regard  to  the  place  of 
divine  revelation  in  originating  this  religion  must 
be  given  up  before  the  victorious  march  of  the 
radical  theory,  then  an  entire  reconstruction  of  the 
essential  elements  of  the  Christian  religion,  includ- 
ing even  its  divine  redemptive  system,  will  have  to 
be  made.  The  conviction  grows  upon  us  that, 
while  this  assault  upon  the  very  foundations  of  the 
history  and  religion  of  Israel  as  involving  a  super- 
natural factor  may  not  be  entirely  new,  yet  it  is  an 
attack  made  by  naturalism  or  rationalism  in  a  nev.- 
manner  which  calls  for  new  refutation.  Let  no 
one,   therefore,  make  light  of  the  issues  involved, 


PRELIMINARY.  159 

or  be  indifferent  to  the  outcome  of  the  controversy, 
for  very  much  depends  upon  it. 

In  the  second  place,  the  questions  involved  are, 
we  believe,  far  deeper  than  even  the  important  mat- 
ters of  authorship  and  literary  style.  The  critics 
in  certain  quarters  have  dwelt  so  much  on  discus- 
sions about  style,  idiom,  and  other  literary  features 
in  determining  the  authorship  and  date  of  the  sev- 
eral books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  consequently 
of  the  origin  and  date  of  the  religious  contents  of 
these  books,  that  undue  prominence  has  been  given 
to  this,  which  at  best  can  only  be  a  superficial 
feature  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  High  claims  are 
made  by  some  of  the  critics  for  scholarship  and 
critical  insight,  and  others  of  them  in  a  rather 
haughty  way  warn  the  conservatives  that  unless 
they  possess  similar  learning  and  insight,  they  are 
not  qualified  to  give  a  judgment  in  the  case.  The 
advanced  critics  only  are  the  scholars  !  The  poor 
conservatives  are  regarded  with  sentiments  some- 
thing like  pity,  and  it  is  plainly  hinted  that  their 
learning  is  antiquated  and  quite  out  of  style. 

The  problems  raised  are  rooted  much  more 
deeply  than  this  surface  view  implies.  The  ques- 
tions which  emerge  are  not  merely  concerning  the 
authorship  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
of  the  authorship  of  that  national  and  religious  life 
of  the  Jewish  nation  which  made  it  so  radically  dis- 
tinct from  other  nations.  The  debate  has  refer- 
ence, not  merely  to  the  origin  of  writings  in  which 


IGO  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

this  remarkable  life  is  recorded,  but  it  relates  to 
the  deeper  problem  of  the  origin  of  religion  in  gen- 
eral, and  of  the  Israelitish  religion  in  particular. 
The  heart  of  the  controversy  is  not  reached  by  in- 
specting with  microscopic  care  the  mere  literature 
of  the  religion,  though  we  may  learn  much  from  this 
source.  The  nature  of  the  religion  exhibited  in 
that  literature,  and  above  all,  the  order  and  princi- 
ples of  its  development,  constitute  the  real  problem 
to  be  dealt  with.  If  this  be  the  true  view  of  the 
case,  the  debate  goes  far  deeper  and  is  much 
broader  than  it  is  often  conceived  to  be.  In  a 
word,  it  raises  the  general  question  of  the  philoso- 
phy of  religion,  and  directly  formulates  the  problem 
of  the  philosophy  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  This  is 
the  position  we  take  in  entering  on  the  criticism  of 
the  radical  theory  of  the  history  and  religion  of  the 
people  of  Israel.  It  is  at  its  roots  a  problem  in  re- 
ligious philosophy  which  is  formulated  for  solution. 
In  the  third  place,  we  shall  take  care  that  no 
undue  assumptions  are  made  by  the  critics  at  the 
outset.  We  have  learned  already  how  prone  radical 
criticism  is  to  deal  in  assumptions.  What  some  of 
these  assumptions  are,  as  laid  down  by  advanced 
criticism,  we  shall  discuss  in  a  subsequent  article. 
What  we  here  at  the  outset  especially  signalize  is 
this,  that  we  shall  not  allow  without  protest  radical 
criticism  to  assume  or  deny  certain  things  which,  be- 
ing assumed  or  denied,  may  necessitate  some  of  the 
main  conclusions  of  their  theory.     Thus,  for  exam- 


PRELIMINARY.  161 

pie,  we  shall  not  allow  the  higher  critic  at  the  out- 
set to  assume,  as  Kuenen  does,  a  certain  theory  in 
regard  to  the  origin  and  growth  of  religion,  nor  to 
deny  the  reality  of  the  supernatural  in  the  form  of 
revelation,  inspiration,  miracle,  and  prophecy  as  so 
many  do.  We  shall  certainly  insist  on  these  being 
at  least  left  open  questions  till  the  investigation  is 
complete,  and  we  shall  not  allow  any  school  of 
critics  to  shut  the  door  in  the  face  of  these  impor- 
tant elements  which  claim  to  have  a  place  in  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  The  conservative  with 
good  grace  might  properly  take  still  higher  ground, 
and  justly  hold  that  since  these  Scriptures  them- 
selves claim  to  contain  direct  divine  communica- 
tions and  other  features  of  the  supernatural,  he  has 
a  right  to  assume  the  reality  of  the  supernatural  in 
the  debate  ;  and,  should  he  do  this,  his  position  is 
made  all  the  more  reasonable  from  the  fact  that  it 
has  been  the  almost  uniform  view  of  the  Church. 
She  has  looked  upon  the  religion  of  Israel  and  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  as  permeated  with  a 
divine  factor  in  the  history,  the  religious  ideas,  and 
the  literature  of  that  religion.  The  advanced  criti- 
cal theory  is  a  comparatively  recent  thing.  It  was 
born  outside  the  Church  only  a  few  centuries  ago, 
it  was  brought  into  the  Church  less  than  a  century 
since,  and  so  it  should  at  least  have  the  merit  of 
the  modesty  becoming  its  youthful  years.  If  any 
party  in  the  controversy  has  the  right  to  make 
assumptions    in    this    field,    it   is  the  conservative. 


162  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

But  we  do  not  insist  on  this  position  at  the  outset. 
\^&  simply  content  ourselves  with  refusing  to  allow 
the  radical  critic  to  make  his  denials  and  assump- 
tions without  question.  We  further  give  due  notice 
that  we  shall  feel  free  to  sift  the  presuppositions 
of  the  radical  critic  as  fully  as  may  be  necessary, 
should  he  venture  to  make  them. 

In  the  fourth  place,  we  are  strongly  inclined  to 
the  view  that  there  is  no  middle  course  which  can 
be  safely  taken  in  this  controversy.  We  doubt 
very  seriously  whether,  between  the  radical  critical 
theory  and  the  historical  conservative  theory  of  the 
national  and  religious  life  of  Israel,  any  compro- 
mise that  does  not  mean  capitulation  is  possible. 

There  is  a  tendency  in  some  quarters  to  accept 
to  a  considerable  extent  the  radical  theory  of  the 
history  of  the  national  life  of  Israel,  and  of  the  ori- 
gin and  development  of  their  religious  ideas  and 
rites  ;  and,  above  all,  there  sometimes  appears  to 
be  an  ttnduc  readiness  to  accept  the  radical  critical 
conclusions  in  regard  to  the  production  of  the  lit- 
erature ;  and  at  the  same  time  the  hope  seems  to 
be  cherished  that  the  historic  faith  of  the  Church 
in  the  supernatural  factor  in  the  religion  of  Israel 
can  be  held  fast.  We  doubt  if  this  is  possible,  and 
are  very  sure  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  attempt 
any  such  compromise  in  order  to  pursue  scholarly 
methods.  The  national  and  religious  life  of  Israel 
are  so  interwoven  that  no  separation  between  them 
is   possible.      If    the    history  be  the    manufactured 


PRELIM  IN AR  K  163 

product  of  later  times,  we  ask  what  becomes  of  the 
rehgious  ideas  with  which  the  history  is  connected  ? 
Are  they  also  manufactured  ?  If  Adam,  Noah, 
Abraham,  and  Moses  are  not  distinctly  historical 
personages,  how  can  we  retain  as  real  the  religious 
truths  and  redemptive  promises  which  are  asso- 
ciated with  these  great  names  ?  The  history  and 
the  religious  systems  must  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
stand  or  fall  together,  for  the  facts  of  the  history 
are  often  doctrines  in  the  concrete  ;  and  the  events 
of  the  narratives  are  frequently  religious  truths  of 
the  utmost  importance.  We  cannot  deny  the 
reality  of  the  history  without  oftentimes  leaving  the 
doctrines  and  religious  truths  hanging  in  mid-air. 
This  being  the  case,  we  are  convinced  that  an}' 
concession  to  advanced  criticism  other  than  such 
as  legitimate  criticism  approves  cannot  be  safely 
made.  We  proceed  with  our  criticism,  therefore, 
assuming  the  strict  historicity  of  the  narratives  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  If  this  be  not 
done,  we  cannot  see  how  any  conclusions  are  to 
be  reached,  for  these  Scriptures  are  our  only  source 
of  information  regarding  the  matters  in  question. 
We  are  convinced  that  this  position  can  be  safely 
taken,  and  all  the  interests  of  legitimate  Higher 
Criticism  be  fully  conserved. 

In  the  last  place,  we  believe  that  conservative 
Higher  Criticism  has  a  very  important  task  to  do  in 
taking  hold  of  the  various  lines  of  reasoning  which 
the  advanced  critics  have  opened  up,  and  following 


1G4  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

them  out  step  by  step.  We  may  surely  be  pardoned 
for  not  believing  in  the  infallibility  of  the  advanced 
critics,  and  we  shall  surely  be  excused  for  ventur- 
ing to  deal  in  as  fair  and  frank  a  manner  as  the 
case  may  require  with  all  the  facts  adduced  and 
theories  advanced  by  these  critics.  This  we  shall 
do,  at  least  until  the  critics  at  some  ecumenical 
council  announce  their  own  infallibility,  and  give 
good  proof  of  this  by  formulating  the  "assured  re- 
sults "  in  which  modern  critical  scholarship  rests 
its  weary  feet.  We  believe  that  along  every  line, 
conservative  Higher  Criticism  can  hold  its  own,  if 
it  pursues  its  work  in  a  solid,  thorough  way.  The 
principles  involved,  the  standpoint  assumed,  the 
methods  of  criticism  employed,  and  the  conclusions 
drawn  by  radical  criticism,  therefore,  all  lie  before 
us.  And  we  cannot  regard  the  conservative  critic 
as  an  invader  when  he  enters  the  lists  on  this  ex- 
tensive field  with  radical  criticism  in  the  interests 
of  what  he  regards  to  be  the  true  welfare  of  the 
Christian  religion.  Perhaps  the  conservative  critic 
could  justly  take  the  position  that  he  is  simpl}'  seek- 
ing to  drive  off  invaders  who  have  appeared  on  the 
field  in  the  persons  of  the  radical  critics,  for  their 
theory  is  certainly  recent  and  novel.  But  we  con- 
tent ourselves  with  simply  meeting  advanced  criti- 
cism face  to  face,  and  handling  it  by  the  legitimate 
methods  of  criticism.  In  the  next  chapter  we  be- 
gin our  task  directly. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  UNDERLYING  PHILOSOPHY. 

Having  in  the  last  chapter  set  forth  some  prelim- 
inary matters,  we  now  enter  formally  on  our  task 
of  criticism.  In  this  chapter  some  remarks  will  be 
offered  regarding  the  general  philosophy  which  un- 
derlies all  forms  of  rationalistic  criticism,  and  whose 
validity,  we  believe,  may  be  seriously  questioned. 
We  are  convinced  that  the  modern  radical  school 
of  criticism  of  the  Scriptures  is  very  largely  the  out- 
come of  a  certain  philosophical  view  of  the  relations 
subsisting  between  God  and  his  works,  and  of 
certain  assumptions  concerning  the  mode  of  the 
divine  operations  in  relation  to  the  universe.  At 
the  very  outset  we  insist  that  no  adequate  critique 
of  radical  critical  theories  can  overlook,  or  afford  to 
leave  without  thorough  examination,  the  philosophy 
which  it  implicitly  or  explicitly  assumes. 

In  general,  the  animus  of  this  philosophy  is 
directed  towards  the  denial  of  the  supernatural. 
As  already  stated  in  a  former  chapter,  radical  criti- 
cism, whether  of  the  Old  Testament  or  New, 
whether  of  a  century  ago  or  of  the  present  day, 
whether  within  the  Church  or  without  it,  always 
ignores,  denies,  or  minimizes  the  supernatural  fac- 

[165] 


166  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

tor,  which  we  beheve  cannot  be  removed  from 
Christianity  without  robbing  it  of  its  glory,  and  de- 
stroying its  spiritual  power. 

This  denial  or  ignoring  of  the  supernatural  has 
been  based  on  one  or  other  of  two  great  types  of 
philosophy.  The  one  is  a  type  of  pantheism,  the 
other  a  phase  of  deism.  Both  deal  with  the  prob- 
lem of  God's  relations  to  his  works.  In  the  relig- 
ious sphere,  the  problem  relates  to  the  mode  of  the 
divine  operations  towards  man,  and  to  the  manner 
in  which  God  has  revealed  himself  to  those  beings 
who  possess  the  religious  nature  and  sentiment  as 
man  does. 

The  former  of  these,  pantheism,  merges  God  and 
the  universe  in  some  way  into  each  other.  Either 
God  is  hidden  in  the  universe,  or  the  universe  is 
merely  the  existence  form  of  God.  In  either  case, 
the  distinct  though  dependent  existence  of  the  uni- 
verse is  not  properl}^  provided  for.  In  both,  the 
proper  transcendency  of  God  in  relation  to  his 
created  works  is  not  rightly  understood  and  ex- 
pressed. 

This  is  not  the  place  where  pantheism  can  be 
fully  criticised.  But  we  wish  to  have  it  very  dis- 
tinctly understood  that  much  of  the  modern  criti- 
cism which  ignores  the  supernatural  and  seeks  to 
give  a  naturalistic  explanation  of  the  religion  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  has  grown  out  of  the  soil  of  the 
idealistic  pantheism  of  Hegel.  If  this  philosophy 
>e  allowed  to  dominate  our  methods  of  criticism, 


THE   UNDERLYING  PHILOSOPHY.  167 

and  to  guide  us  in  formulating  theories  as  to  the 
origin  and  growth  of  rehgion,  it  needs  no  prophet 
to  predict  the  result.  If  God  is  only  immanent  in 
the  universe,  in  human  history,  in  the  soul  of  man, 
and  is  merely  unfolding  himself  in  a  natural  and 
necessary  way  therein,  then  everything  is  reduced 
to  the  category  of  the  natural,  and  Christianity  is 
only  one  of  many  forms  of  religious  progress  with 
nothing  peculiar  about  it,  further  perhaps  than  that 
it  is  the  best  that  has  yet  appeared.  And  this  is 
precisely  the  conclusion  which  radical  criticism 
reaches,  and  which  it  proclaims  upon  the  housetops 
as  the  assured  results  of  the  best  modern  scholar- 
ship. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  incline  to  the  de- 
istical  type  of  philosophy  put  God  so  far  away  from 
the  universe  that  he  has  now  really  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  its  history.  God  created  it  and 
put  it  under  certain  laws,  and  according  to  these  it 
has  ever  been  working  out  its  destiny  in  a  natural 
necessary  way.  According  to  this  view,  it  is  clear 
that  the  supernatural  has  really  no  place,  can  in- 
deed have  none.  There  can  be  no  revelation,  no 
miracle,  no  answer  to  prayer,  no  renewing  grace. 
The  facts  of  religion  among  men,  and  as  exhibited 
in  the  Scriptures  particularly,  must  all  be  explained 
as  natural  historical  human  products.  In  this  way 
the  results  of  radical  criticism  naturally  and  neces- 
sarily follow  from  the  philosophical  theory  of  the 
deist. 


168  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Of  these  two  tendencies  the  pantheistic  has, 
perhaps,  the  most  favor  at  the  present  day,  just  as 
the  deistic  had  precedence  about  a  century  ago. 
As  against  both  we  take  our  stand  firmly  on  the 
basis  of  sound  philosophical  and  biblical  theism.  Of 
the  utmost  importance  we  believe  it  to  be,  to  vindi- 
cate biblical  theism  as  against  the  subtle  idealistic 
pantheism  above  described.  Biblical  theism  asserts 
at  once  the  transcendency  and  immanency  of  God, 
in  relation  to  his  works.  It  puts  God  not  only  be- 
fore the  universe  as  its  beginning,  but  it  makes  him 
the  ground  or  reason  of  its  existence  every  moment. 
It  places  God  not  only  within  his  works,  but  it  re- 
gards him  as  God  high  over  all,  blessed  forever 
more.  By  the  very  terms  of  this  philosophy  both 
the  natural  and  the  supernatural  are  properly  ex- 
plained, and  a  fitting  place  is  left  for  every  super- 
natural factor  alike  in  the  religious  system  set  forth 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  the  spiritual  experience  of 
the  truly  religious  life.  But  we  cannot  enlarge  on 
this  point.  We  charge  radical  criticism  with  hold- 
ing in  its  hand  a  false  philosophy  of  the  relation  of 
of  God  to  his  works  in  general,  and  of  the  method 
according  to  which  he  reveals  himself  to  men  in 
particular. 

At  this  point,  it  may  be  well  to  consider  further 
the  teaching  of  the  radical  theories  upon  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration.  In  spite  of  all  the  critics 
say  to  the  contrary,  the  advanced  theories  of  radi- 
cal criticism   do,  in   the  very  nature   of  the  case, 


THE   UNDERLYING  PHILOSOPHY.  169 

affect  the  views  of  inspiration  which  can  be  consist- 
ently held.  This  does  not  mean  that  one  cannot 
hold  a  proper  scriptural  doctrine  of  inspiration,  and 
enter  upon  the  task  of  the  literary  and  historical 
criticism  of  the  Scriptures.  We  believe  that  care- 
ful and  scholarly  criticism  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
is  quite  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  their  inspira- 
tion in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  of  the  term. 

But  we  are  firmly  convinced  that  the  results  of 
radical  criticism,  and  of  the  theories  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  religion  of  Israel  which  it  advocates, 
cannot  be  harmonized  with  a  sound  doctrine  of 
inspiration.  If  the  deistical  view  be  taken,  there 
can  be  no  real  inspiration  other  than  that  which 
appears  from  age  to  age  in  what  may  be  termed 
the  natural  history  of  religion.  Any  direct  divine 
influence  upon  chosen  men  by  means  of  which  they 
received,  and  then  spoke  or  wrote  down  the  mind  of 
God  is  simply  impossible.  Mere  naturalism  is  the 
distinguishing  quality  of  the  religion,  and  human 
reason  is  the  only  source  of  authority  in  the  sphere 
of  religion.  If  the  pantheistic  view  be  taken,  then 
in  the  experience  and  history  of  man  the  divine  will 
is  unfolded.  So  we  are  told  by  even  such  modern 
critics  as  profess  to  have  a  sincere  regard  for  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  that  the  whole  human 
race  is  inspired,  inasmuch  as  God  first  reaches  self- 
consciousness  in  the  consciousness  of  man,  in  some 
such  way  as  makes  man's  thought  of  God,  God's 
thought  of  himself.     This  is  really  idolatry  of  a  re- 


170  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

fined  tj'pe,  where  each  man  virtually  creates  his  own 
God.  Then  the  only  sort  of  inspiration,  we  are 
told,  which  is  special  in  its  nature  is  the  inspiration 
of  the  whole  Jewish  nation.  There  were  no  chosen 
inspired  men.  The  sacred  books  are,  strictly 
speaking,  the  sacred  literature  of  this  nation.  Such 
is  the  view  of  many  modern  critics. 

According  to  this  view  there  are  really  no  in- 
spired books  in  the  proper  sense.  We  firmly  be- 
lieve that  it  is  not  possible  to  harmonize  this 
position  with  the  facts  and  claims  of  the  Scriptures 
themselves  in  regard  to  their  divine  inspiration. 
The  whole  doctrine  of  inspiration  is  evidently  at 
stake  in  these  discussions  with  the  radical  criticism. 
The  claim  of  the  Scripture  itself,  and  the  obvious 
facts  it  embodies  require  a  doctrine  of  inspiration 
which  cannot  be  made  to  agree  with  any  of  these 
naturalistic  evolutionary  theories  of  the  religion  and 
the  literature  of  Israel. 

But  we  cannot  follow  this  point  out  at  greater 
length.  We  charge  radical  criticism  with  being 
necessarily  hostile  to  a  sound  dqctrine  of  inspi- 
ration, and  on  this  account  are  convinced  that  the 
critics  cannot  justly  claim  the  liberty  of  handling 
as  they  please  the  sacred  books,  while  at  the  same 
time  they  try  to  retain  a  doctrine  of  inspiration 
worthy  the  name. 

At  this  point  conservative  criticism  has  a  strong 
case  against  the  advanced  theories.      If  the  unique 


THE    UNDERLYING  PHILOSOPHY.  171 

character  of  the  Scriptures  as  truly  the  inspired, 
infalKble,  and  authoritative  word  of  God  be  given 
up,  serious  if  not  fatal  injury  will  be  done  to  evan- 
gelical truth  and  spiritual  religion.  We  need  in- 
spired men  who  have  given  us  an  inspired  book,  or 
set  of  books,  which  is  not  merely  the  sacred  litera- 
ture of  the  Jewish  people,  but  a  revelation  from 
God  and  distinctly  inspired.  We  are  sure  that  the 
trend  of  advanced  criticism,  even  in  its  mildest 
forms,  is  toward  lower  views  of  the  inspiration  and 
authority  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  This  criticism 
is  open  to  severest  blame  when  lodged  within  the 
Church.  It  not  only  makes  scrutiny  of  the  Script- 
ures, but  it  also  assails  the  inspired  records  which 
are  the  constitution  of  the  Church  itself. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that, 
as  the  standard  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
is  lowered,  the  degree  of  the  inspiration  of  the  crit- 
ics themselves  seems  to  rise  higher  and  higher. 
As  the  authority  of  sacred  Scripture  is  decreased, 
the  authority  of  the  critic  seems  to  increase. 
Hence,  there  has  been  developed  that  subjectivity 
of  the  critic  by  which  it  is  assumed  that  his  opinion 
must  be  taken  as  of  very  great  weight.  In  the 
exercise  of  this  subjectivity  the  critic  sits  in  judg- 
ment upon  the  literary  form  and  actual  contents 
of  this  book  and  that.  He  culls,  omits,  and  modi- 
fies passage  after  passage,  because  as  it  stands, 
it    does  not  meet  the  approval  of   his    literary   or 


172  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

moral  sense  of  what  it  should  be.  If  a  passage 
does  not  lit  the  critics'  theory  as  they  think,  they 
will  take  a  good  look  at  it,  solemnly  pronounce  it 
an  interpolation,  and  promptly  set  it  aside.  An- 
other passage  is  supposed  to  be  in  the  wrong  place, 
and  it  is  transposed  according  to  the  decision  of  the 
critic.  The  critic  is  thus  much  like  the  editor  of  a 
daily  paper,  who  uses  scissors  and  mucilage  in  cul- 
ling and  patching  till  his  task  for  the  day  is  com- 
plete and  so  much  copy  produced.  Then  whole 
books  are  severed  in  a  very  arbitrary  way  into  two 
or  more  portions,  and  on  a  very  slender  basis  of 
fact  wonderful  conclusions  are  made  to  rest.  The 
theory  is  spun  out  of  the  critic's  brain  in  a  purely 
subjective  manner,  and  when  we  look  at  the  result 
of  the  spinning  we  find  that  it  is  but  a  cobweb. 

Our  final  charge,  therefore,  against  radical  criti- 
cism in  this  chapter,  is  its  subjectivity.  If  we  were 
to  interpret  this  hard  word  for  our  untrained  readers, 
we  would  say  that  radical  criticism  is  over-burdened 
with  self-conceit,  and  weighed  down  with  a  sense 
of  the  authority  of  its  own  opinions.  The  whole  at- 
titude of  radical  criticism  at  this  point  is  at  fault.  It 
is  at  best  conjectural  criticism,  where  guess-work 
takes  the  place  of  sound  inference,  and  where  the 
well-founded  results  of  one  critic  cancel  the  equally 
well-founded  results  of  another.  The  objective  facts 
found  in  the  religion  and  sacred  Scriptures  of  Israel 
must  be  fairly  studied  by  legitimate  criticism,   and 


THE    UNDERLYING   PHILOSOPHY.  173 

our  subjective  opinions  should  be  formulated  in  ac- 
cordance with  these  facts  in  all  critical  studies. 

The  next  chapter  will  deal  with  the  philosophy  of 
religious  development  associated  with  radical  criti- 
cism. This  will  lead  us  to  inquire  into  the  sound- 
ness of  its  evolutionary  theory  of  that  development 
as  it  appears  in  the  religion  of  Israel. 


CHAPTER  III. 

ITS  PHILOSOPHY    OF    RELIGION. 

In  a  single  chapter  some  things  have  been  said 
regarding  the  philosophy  of  which  radical  criticism 
is  the  child,  and  of  the  subjectivity  which  naturally 
becomes  the  attitude  of  such  criticism.  The  fatal 
effects  of  this  inadequate  philosophy  upon  the  bib- 
lical doctrine  of  inspiration  were  pointed  out.  Much 
more  should  have  been  said  about  this  last  point. 
That  the  Scriptures  have  a  well  defined  doctrine 
concerning  their  own  nature  as  inspired  cannot  be 
denied.  That  our  doctrine  of  inspiration  should  be 
gathered  from  what  the  Scriptures  have  to  say  of 
themselves  on  this  particular  point  must  be  ad- 
mitted. Yet  we  find  in  the  face  of  these  facts  that 
radical  criticism  either  ignores  this  quality  of  the 
Scriptures  altogether,  or  so  explains  it  as  to  explain 
it  away  almost  entirely.  Even  those  critics  who 
profess  to  retain  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  are  con- 
stantly telling  us  that  it  must  be  recast  in  order  to 
meet  the  demands  of  advancing  scholarship.  Now 
we  shall  bo  exceedingly  careful  to  put  no  barrier  in 
the  way  of  scholarship,  and  yet  we  must  say  that 
those  methods  and  results  of  scholarship  which  do 
scant  justice  to  the  claims  and  contents  of  the 
[174] 


ITS  PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.  175 

Scriptures  very  justly  raise  a  suspicion  in  earnest 
minds  that  there  is  danger  lurking  somewhere  in 
such  critical  scholarship. 

In  this  chapter  brief  allusion  will  be  made  to 
the  philosophy  of  the  origin  and  growth  of  religion 
in  general,  and  of  the  religion  of  Israel  in  particular, 
on  which  radical  criticism  rests. 

In  a  former  chapter  we  saw  that  advanced  radical 
criticism  holds  and  applies  the  principle  of  natural- 
istic evolution  to  the  facts  of  the  genesis  and 
development  of  religion.  And  even  critics  who  ad- 
mit in  some  form  the  presence  and  influence  of  the 
supernatural  factor  are  often  strangely  enamored 
by  the  magic  of  the  word  ciwlution,  and  evidently 
become  unable,  in  some  instances,  to  distinguish 
between  an  onward  movement  in  religious  thought 
and  life  which  is  entirely  naturalistic,  and  one  which 
is  the  product  of  real  communications  made  by  God 
to  certain  men  for  themselves  and  for  the  whole 
race. 

We  need  not  repeat  what  was  said  in  a  former 
chapter  regarding  the  explanation  which  radical 
criticism  makes  of  the  origin  and  expansion  of  the 
religion  of  Israel.  It  began  in  its  lower  and  rose  to 
its  higher  forms.  Polytheism  gradually  became 
monotheism,  and  simple  laws  and  rites  grew  into 
complex  and  elaborate  ritual  and  legislation,  during 
a  period  of  nearly  ten  centuries.  In  this  respect 
there  is  really  no  difference  between  the  essential 
principles  which  worked  in  the  religion  of  Israel, 


176  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

and  the  principles  which  marked  the  growth  of  the 
other  great  rehgious  systems  which  have  appeared 
in  the  world.  In  our  criticism  of  the  radical  theories 
this  fact  should  be  kept  in  mind. 

We  are  here  brought  face  to  face  with  certain 
views  which  in  recent  years  have  become  quite 
popular  in  certain  quarters  as  the  result  of  the  com- 
parative study  of  religions.  This  study,  useful  and 
helpful  if  rightly  conducted,  has,  in  the  hands  of 
not  a  few  scholars,  been  used  to  level  Christianity 
down  to  the  plane  of  other  religious  systems.  Be- 
tween the  religion  of  Israel,  and  that  of  Egypt  and 
Chaldea,  between  Christianity  and  Buddhism,  there 
is,  according  to  these  writers,  no  difference  in  kind. 
All  are  the  natural  products  of  the  religious  instinct 
in  man  working  itself  out  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  natural  evolution.  The  religious  system 
found  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  has  in  it  nothing  es- 
sentially different  from  what  may  be  found  in  germ 
at  least  in  other  systems.  According  to  this  view, 
the  ritual  and  legislation  of  the  Scriptures  are  to  be 
recast  to  fit  the  theory,  and  the  literature  itself  must 
be  subjected  to  entire  reconstruction.  Upon  this 
general  position  of  radical  criticism  we  make  several 
remarks. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  an  unfounded  assumption 
to  reduce  Christianity  to  the  category  of  the  other 
religious  systems  which  are  to  be  found  among 
men.  Such  an  assumption  is  not  supported  by  the 
facts  in  the  case,  but  is  the  result  of  a  preconceived 


ITS  PHILOSOPHY   OF  RELIGION.      '      177 

theory.  It  would  be  easy  to  show  that  there  are 
factors  in  Christianity  which  are  not  found  in  any 
other  system.  The  trinitarian  conceiDtion  of  God, 
the  incarnation  of  Christ,  the  great  redemptive 
scheme,  and  the  ethical  system  of  Christianit}', 
cannot  be  the  products  of  any  amalgamation  oi 
similar  factors  found  in  other  systems.  A  case 
might  be  made  out  for  the  view  that  instead  of 
Christianity  being  the  product  of  these  other  sys- 
tems, the  truths  found  in  these  systems  may  be  a 
deposit  from  the  primitive  monotheism  and  pri- 
meval revelation  from  which  Christianity  has  come 
by  direct  divine  descent.  More  than  this,  even  if 
it  were  made  out  that  in  some  of  the  non-biblical 
religions  there  are  factors  common  to  them  and 
Christianity,  it  would  not  follow  at  all,  without 
clear  evidence,  that  Christianity  is  simply  a  natural 
compilation  of  the  better  elements  in  these  sys- 
tems. Instead  of  the  Christian  system  being  a 
collection  of  sru-vivals  from  other  systems,  these 
systems  may  be  errant  rivulets  from  the  stream 
of  revelation  which  Christianity  represents.  We 
charge  radical  criticism,  therefore,  with  making  a 
mere  assumption  at  this  point,  and  with  giving  us 
no  evidence  to  support  it. 

In  the  second  place,  there  are  factors  in  the 
religious  S3^stem  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  which 
no  naturalistic  evolution  can  account  for.  Even  if 
naturalism  may  be  adequate  to  explain  the  non- 
biblical  systems,  it  might  still  turn  out  that  there 

12 


178   -  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

are  factors  in  the  religion  of  Israel  that  will  not  be 
reduced  in  the  crucible  of  naturalism.  The  lofty 
tone  of  the  Scriptures,  the  high  claim  that  God  is 
speaking  to  men  therein,  the  wonderful  organic 
unity  of  the  whole  volume,  the  prophetic  element 
in  them,  their  remarkable  picture  of  the  character 
and  government  of  God,  the  true  delineation  which 
they  give  of  man's  moral  state,  and  the  unique 
and  potent  remedy  which  they  unfold  and  apply 
as  the  sure  solvent  of  that  moral  state,  together 
with  a  score  of  other  factors,  which  might  be  noted, 
did  space  permit, —  all  stand  forth  as  incapable  of 
a  naturalistic  explanation,  such  as  might  suffice  for 
the  main  features  of  the  non-biblical  systems.  To 
rank  the  religion  of  the  Bible  beside  the  non-bibli- 
cal systems,  can  only  be  done  by  ignoring,  or  over- 
looking, the  unique  factors  w4iich  belong  to  the 
former.  To  call  bitter,  sweet,  or  the  black,  white, 
does  not  effect  the  change  that  the  difference  be- 
tween these  words  denotes.  So  to  rank  Christi- 
anity and  Zoroastrianism  in  the  same  category, 
can  only  be  done  by  shutting  the  eyes  willfully  to 
the  factors  of  the  Christian  system,  which  make  it 
different  in  kind  from  all  other  systems.  We 
charge  radical  criticism  with  unscientific  procedure, 
which  is  none  the  less  to  be  condemned  because 
it  is  propounded  with  such  boldness. 

In  the  third  place,  radical  naturalistic  criticism 
at  this  point  can  give  no  satisfactory  explanation  of 
the  fact  that  there  has  been  an  advance  of  religious 


ITS  PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.  179 

ideas  and  practice  among  the  Israelites,  while  noth- 
ing of  the  kind  took  place  among  the  surrounding 
nations.  Let  the  reader  note  this  point  with  care. 
Naturalistic  criticism  asserts  that  the  same  princi- 
ples underlie  the  evolution  of  the  religion  of  Israel 
as  are  to  be  found  in  the  religion  of  Egypt,  of  Chal- 
dea,  of  Persia,  or  of  India.  The  same  philosophy 
is  applicable  to  all  alike.  This  being  the  case,  we 
simply  ask  the  radical  critics  to  explain  how  it  came 
to  pass  that  by  slow  degrees,  yet  most  surely,  the 
Israelites  developed  ethical  monotheism,  and  an 
elaborate  spiritual  worship,  while  the  other  nations 
either  remained  stationary  or  degenerated  in  their 
religous  condition.  Some,  explanation  of  the  facts, 
even  on  the  critics '  own  showing,  must  be  given,  and 
we  call  for  a  sufficient  cause  to  account  for  the  ad- 
mittedly diverse  effects  or  results. 

It  will  not  do  to  assume  that  the  Semitic  genius 
of  the  people  explains  it,  for  there  were  other  Sem- 
itic peoples  who  did  not  bring  forth  the  same 
fruitage  of  religious  advancement.  It  will  not  do 
to  assume  some  inherent  superiority  in  the  people, 
for  in  many  respects  other  peoples  of  that  age  were 
as  likely  as  Israel  to  produce  high  religious  results, 
as,  for  example,  the  Greeks.  Nor  will  it  suffice  to 
assume  that  environment  accounts  for  it,  for  the 
potent  influence  of  environment  would  have  to  be 
proved  as  a  fact,  and  if  proved,  the  result  would 
still  leave  the  question  of  the  adjustment  of  the 
environment  unsolved.     We  revert  to  our  question 


180  RADICAL    CRITICISM 

again,  and  challenge  radical  criticism  to  give  a 
better  account  of  the  cause  of  the  development  of 
religious  ideas  and  life  among  the  people  of  Israel 
than  the  one  which  it  gives  of  itself.  Some  ex- 
planation of  the  difference  between  Israel  -in  this 
respect  and  the  nations  round  about  for  a  period  of 
ten  centuries  must  be  given.  We  postulate,  as 
against  naturalistic  evolution,  the  presence  and  po- 
tency of  the  Spirit  of  God,  working  in  and  through 
selected  persons  of  that  chosen  nation,  as  a  full 
explanation  of  all  the  facts  of  progress  exhibited  in 
the  religious  thought  and  life  of  Israel,  and  as  the 
true  and  adequate  philosophy  of  the  difference  be- 
tween Israel  and  other  nations  in  this  respect.  We 
shall  hold  by  this  explanation,  at  least  till  radical 
criticism  can  supply  a  better.  This  we  have  no 
expectation  of  beholding  in  our  day,  but  we  shall 
leave  our  challenge  open  on  this  point. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  law  of  purely  natural 
religious  evolution  among  men  is  dcgcncj-ation. 
Here  the  radical  critics  generally  fail  to  take  prop- 
erly into  account  the  facts  and  effects  of  sin  as 
moral  evil  on  the  human  race.  It  may  be  laid 
down  almost  as  an  axiom  that,  owing  to  the  blight 
which  sin  has  brought  upon  the  moral  and  religious 
nature  of  man,  the  law  of  his  moral  and  religious 
progress  on  the  merely  natural  plane,  must  be 
retrogression.  Historically,  this  can  be  abundantly 
proved    alike    from    secular    and    sacred    history. 


ITS  PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.  181 

Witness  the  degeneration  of  the  people  before 
the  Deluge,  the  declension  in  a  few  generations 
from  the  knowledge  of  God  which  all  men  pos- 
sessed in  Noah  and  his  family  after  the  Flood,  and 
even  the  frequent  falling  into  idolatry  of  Israel 
during  its  strange  career,  as  abundant  proof  of  this 
sad  fact. 

Then,  if  we  enter  the  field  of  ethnology  we  find 
that  social  and  moral  degeneration  seems  to  be 
the  law  of  nature,  and  that  wherever  advance  ap- 
pears, it  can  be  traced  to  contact  with  the  stream 
of  the  supernatural  in  some  way.  Modern  savages 
are  not  the  prototypes  of  primitive  men.  They  are 
the  product  of  natural  evolution,  working  according 
to  the  law  of  degeneration.  In  the  field  of  com- 
parative religion  this  same  law  is  repeatedly  illus- 
trated. The  widespread  tradition  of  a  golden  age 
when  men  dwelt  at  peace  with  each  other  and  in 
harmony  with  God,  and  when  even  nature  was 
never  angry,  but  heaven  and  earth  in  beneficence 
smiled  upon  men,  means  much  in  this  connection. 
The  fact  that  the  older  beliefs  and  practices  of 
pagan  nations,  as  represented  by  their  earlier  tra- 
ditions, are  often  nobler  and  purer  than  those  of 
the  present  time,  cannot  be  overlooked  here.  In 
Egypt,  in  Chaldea,  in  Persia,  and  India,  did  space 
permit,  facts  could  be  adduced  to  show  that  the 
law  of  natural  evolution  is  degeneration,  and  wher- 
ever an  upward  step  has  been  taken,  this  is  clearly 


182  RADICAL   CRITICISM. 

seen  to  be  due  not  to  the  race  uplifting  itself,  but 
to  the  divine  Hand  reaching  down  to  raise  it  up 
and  lead  it  on.  But  at  this  point  this  chapter 
must  conclude. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

GENERAL    HISTORICAL  DEFECTS. 

Two  chapters  have  been  devoted  to  the  consid- 
eration of  some  philosophical  aspects  of  radical 
criticism.  Its  underlying  philosophical  principles, 
and  its  philosophy  of  the  origin  and  growth  of  the 
religion  of  Israel  were  discussed  in  these  chapters. 
In  both  fields,  especially  in  the  latter,  the  discussion 
was  far  too  brief.  Only  a  few  points  of  a  general 
nature  could  be  suggested.  Our  firm  conviction  is 
that  the  philosophy  of  religious  development  which 
radical  criticism  adopts  and  argues  from  is  utterly 
defective,  and  we  regret  that  our  space  renders  it 
impossible  to  exhibit  its  many  defects  more  fully 
than  the  last  chapter  enabled  us  to  do. 

In  this  chapter  we  pass  from  the  domain  of  phi- 
losophy to  the  field  of  history.  We  shall  test  the 
theory  at  several  points  by  the  assured  light  which 
the  well  ascertained  facts  of  history  shed  upon  it. 
That  this  line  of  criticism  is  exceedingly  important 
is  indeed  self-evident.  The  Scriptures  which  set 
forth  the  Christian  system  contain  a  great  deal  of 
history.  In  a  certain  sense  they  are  a  history.  The 
facts  of  the  history  are  often  the  vehicles  for  the 
communication  of  the  will  of  God,  and  the  revela- 

[183] 


184  RADICAL   CRITICISM. 

tion  is  thus  imbedded  in  a  well  defined  historical 
basis.  This  feature  of  Christianity  renders  it  capa- 
ble of  clear  historical  tests,  and  gives  its  historical 
evidences  immense  value.  It  also  enables  us  in 
turn  to  test  those  theories  which  radical  criticism 
propounds  by  the  facts  of  a  history.  If  we  find, 
therefore,  that  those  theories  run  counter  to  the 
well  ascertained  facts  of  the  history,  then  we  are  in 
possession  of  a  potent  weapon  for  the  refutation  of 
the  radical  critical  theory.  If,  in  like  manner,  we 
find  that  radical  criticism  subordinates  the  facts  of 
history  to  the  terms  of  its  theory,  or  contents  itself 
with  a  defective  philosophy  of  the  facts  of  histor}', 
then  we  shall  be  justified  in  rejecting  the  theory  on 
historical  grounds.  Two  chapters  will  be  devoted 
to  these  historical  inquiries.  This  one  will  present 
general  features,  the  next  will  take  up  some  particu- 
lar considerations. 

Concerning  the  general  historical  features  of  the 
religion  of  Israel  by  which  radical  critical  theories 
may  be  tested,  we  must  first  understand  clearly  the 
precise  sense  in  which  the  revelation  unfolded  in 
the  Scriptures  is  historical.  Radical  criticism  re- 
gards the  Scriptures,  with  all  their  contents  of  his- 
tory, ritual,  and  legislation,  as  the  natural  historical 
product  of  the  Jewish  nation.  These  Scriptures, 
according  to  this  view,  are  historical  in  the  sense 
that  they  are  the  products  of  the  times  in  which 
they  were  produced,  and  that  they  simply  register 
the  stage  of  religious  development  reached  at  any 


GENERAL   HISTORICAL   DEFECTS.  185 

particular  time.  The  view  presented  is  that  the 
people  of  Israel  produced  the  Scriptures,  whereas 
the  true  view  is  that  the  Scriptures,  together  with 
the  revelation  which  they  set  forth,  produced  the 
nation  and  Church  of  the  theocracy. 

Over  against  this  view  of  the  historicity  of  the 
contents  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  we  main- 
tain the  view  that  while  these  Scriptures  are  im- 
bedded in  history,  and  associated  intimately  with 
the  successive  stages  of  the  history  of  Israel,  yet 
they  are  not  the  mere  product  of  the  people,  age 
after  age,  among  whom  they  were  produced.  All 
along  there  was  a  divine  factor  coming  in  upon  the 
age,  and  through  chosen  individuals  communicating 
to  the  age  something  new  which  the  age  itself  could 
never  have  discovered  nor  produced,  and  which  is 
the  cause  of  the  onward  and  upward  movement 
that  appears  in  the  development  of  the  religion  of 
Israel.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  revelation  is  his- 
torical and  progressive.  Just  as  in  nature  the  di- 
vine agency  is  necessary  to  cause  the  organic  to 
come  in  upon  the  inorganic,  the  rational  upon  the 
organic,  and  the  moral  upon  the  rational,  so  the 
divine  agency  is  the  real  and  requisite  causality 
which  lies  back  of  every  true  advance  in  religious 
activity,  during  the  ages  wdien  the  Scriptures  were 
produced.  Both  in  nature  and  revelation  there  are 
progress  and  a  continuous  history,  but  in  both  the 
lower  of  itself  does  not  produce  the  higher.  If  w'e 
were  to  admit  this,  we  would  always  find  a    new 


186  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

factor  in  the  higher  for  which  no  casuahty  was 
provided  in  the  lower.  In  order  to  provide  this 
casuahty  we  posit  the  divine  agency  as  the  only 
adequate  explanation,  and  charge  radical  criticism 
with  total  inability  to  provide  a  naturalistic  expla- 
nation which  is  adequate. 

In  the  second  place,  a  careful  study  of  the  his- 
tory set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  shows  that  each  suc- 
cessive age  pre-supposes  the  preceding  age  and  its 
contents.  This  can  be  made  clear  even  if  we 
grant  that  there  are,  as  the  critics  sa3%  two  lines  of 
history,  the  prophetic  and  the  priestly,  blended 
together  in  the  narratives  as  we  now  have  them. 
If  we  begin  with  the  age  of  Ezra,  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  incidents  which  happened  in  connection 
with  the  restoration  from  the  Exile,  and  the  whole 
scope  of  what  Ezra  did,  do  not  mark  an  onward 
natural  development,  but  are  only  possible  under 
the  supposition  that  mature  Mosaism  existed  before 
that  day.  If  we  take  our  stand  at  the  time  of 
Josiah,  or  Hezekiah,  the  proceedings  of  that  age  in 
like  manner  pre-suppose  the  reality  of  the  fully- 
developed  Mosaic  system,  and  so  do  not  mark  the 
origin  of  something  entirely  new.  In  like  manner, 
if  space  permitted,  it  would  be  possible,  by  tracing 
the  history  back  through  the  period  of  the  early 
Kings  and  the  confused  era  of  the  Judges,  to  show 
that  each  stage  pre-supposed,  as  already  existent, 
mature  Mosaism  as  the  ideal  which  was  ever  set 
before  the  people.      The  only  way  by  which  this 


GENERAL  HISTORICAL  DEFECTS.  187 

argument  can  be  set  aside,  is  to  deny  the  reality  of 
the  history  as  it  now  stands  ;  and,  if  this  be  done, 
there  is  an  end  of  all  debate  on  the  lines  of  histor- 
ical investigation  and  proof. 

In  the  third  place,  silence  regarding  the  actual 
observance  of  the  complete  ritual  and  legislation 
of  the  Mosaic  system  does  not  prove  the  non- 
existence of  that  system  in  its  mature  form.  The 
critics  make  much  of  this  argument.  They  tell  us 
again  and  again,  that  we  have  no  account  of  the 
observance  of  the  Deuteronomic  code  during  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  and  no  information  that 
the  Priestly  code  was  in  force  during  the  days  of 
the  early  Kings.  From  this  silence  regarding  these 
things,  the  critics  conclude  that  these  codes  did  not 
exist  during  these  periods.  Now  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  critics  exaggerate  the  measure  of  silence 
which  the  history  exhibits  in  regard  to  this  observ- 
ance or  non-observance.  And,  further,  when  the 
critics  find  that  there  is  what  looks  like  a  clear 
allusion  to  the  existence  of  mature  Mosaism  in  the 
earlier  history,  they  boldly  shout,  "Interpolation," 
or  carry  the  history  forward  to  the  era  which  suits 
their  theory.  This,  again,  is  an  end  of  all  debate 
which  rests  on  an  historic  basis.  And  again,  it  by 
no  means  follows  that,  because  legislation  and 
ritual  were  not  observed,  then  they  were  not  exist- 
ent and  binding,  nor  should  we  conclude  that 
because  there  is  no  historical  statement  about  their 
observance,    therefore  they  were  not  observed  by 


188  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

the  people.  The  history  itself  shows  that  the  peo- 
ple often  fell  away  and  came  far  short  of  the  ideal 
before  them,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that  through  long  periods  of  peace  and  prosperity 
the  Mosaic  system  was  regularly  observed  when  the 
history  naturally  has  little  to  say  about  it.  The 
history,  too,  especially  during  the  unsettled  period 
of  the  judges,  gives  us,  in  part,  the  reasons  which 
would  sufficiently  account  for  the  imperfect  obedi- 
ence to  a  system  of  ritual  and  legislation  which  all 
the  while  was  real  and  obligatory  upon  the  people. 

The  argument  from  silence,  moreover,  proves  far 
too  much.  If  it  proves  the  non-existence  of  the 
Priestly  code  prior  to  the  Exile,  it  will  also  prove 
its  non-existence  after  the  Exile.  For  the  striking 
fact,  often  overlooked  by  the  critics,  is  nevertheless 
true  that  we  find  just  as  little  historical  allusion  to 
the  mature  Mosaic  system  after  the  Exile  as  before 
it,  and  especially  is  it  the  case  that  never  after  the 
Exile  is  there  any  allusion  to  the  Ark  of  the  Testi- 
mony with  which  many  of  tlie  details  of  the  Priestly 
code  were  associated.  The  argument  a  silciitio 
consequently  proves  either  too  little  or  too  much, 
and  may  be  set  aside  as  of  no  value  for  the  critics  in 
support  of  their  conclusions. 

In  the  fourth  place,  according  to  the  critical  re- 
construction of  the  histor}-,  no  proper  account  can 
be  given  of  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  the 
consequent  division  of  the  people  into  the  two 
kingdoms,  each  of  which  has  its  separate  history. 


GENERAL  HISTORICAL   DEFECTS.  189 

As  to  the  historicity  of  this  division,  no  doubt  can 
be  entertained,  unless  the  whole  history  of  the 
nation  be  resolved  into  myth  or  legend.  Admit- 
ting the  real  historical  nature  of  the  revolt  and  sub- 
sequent career  of  the  two  kingdoms,  we  find  that 
over  three  centuries  before  the  days  of  Josiah,  and 
fully  five  centuries  prior  to  the  time  of  Ezra,  the 
Mosaic  system  as  represented  by  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  must  have  existed.  The  reply  which  the 
critics  make,  to  the  effect  that  this  Pentateuch  was 
not  produced  till  long  after  the  division,  does  not 
help  the  case,  even  if  it  had  anything  in  its  support. 
It  is  scarcely  likel}^  that  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
would  borrow  their  complex  ritual  system  from  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  for  there  was  such  an  antago- 
nism between  them  that  this  would  be  exceedingly 
improbable,  and  to  suppose  that  a  similar  natural 
evolution  of  rite  and  law  took  place  in  Israel  as  in 
Judah,  and  that  it  was  written  out  in  that  Penta- 
teuch in  later  times,  is  almost  out  of  the  question. 
We  press  this  consideration  against  the  critics,  and 
are  free  to  confess  that,  though  we  have  read  a 
good  deal  of  the  writings  of  the  critics,  we  cannot 
recall  any  satisfactory  account  of  the  division  of  the 
nation,  and  of  the  contents  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch given  by  radical  criticism. 

Moreover,  from  the  history  of  this  division,  we 
cannot  fail  to  note  that  the  Samaritans  held  to 
monotheism,  and  one  central  sanctuary  which  they 
set  up  for  themselves  at  Mt.  Gerizim.     This  would 


190  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

seem  to  indicate  that  the  nation  was,  even  at  that 
time,  monotheistic,  and  was  directed  to  hold  wor- 
ship specially  at  one  central  sanctuary.  It  cannot 
be  supposed  that  the  ten  tribes  were  far  in  advance 
of  the  two  tribes  at  that  time,  and  yet  the  critics 
tell  us  that  monotheism  and  worship  at  one  shrine 
in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  did  not  come  to  be  the 
fact  till  the  days  of  Josiah  and  Ezra.  Of  course, 
in  presenting  the  historical  argument  based  upon 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  we  are  aware  that  the 
critics  have  their  theory  of  this  form  of  the  Penta- 
teuch which  is  in  harmony  with  that  which  they 
hold  regarding  its  Judaic  form.  We  simply  em- 
phasize the  fact  that  radical  criticism  has  to  deal 
with  both  forms  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  this 
fact  renders  their  problem  more  complex. 

In  the  fifth  place,  we  wish  merely  to  mention 
some  other  general  historical  matters  in  the  briefest 
possible  way  before  this  chapter  closes.  First,  we 
charge  the  critical  theory  with  utterly  destroying 
the  historical  continuity  of  the  Messianic  promise. 
Taking  the  history  as  it  stands  in  Scripture,  we 
find  this  line  of  glorious  promise  running  like  n 
golden  thread  all  through  the  Old  Testament  \\V:.- 
tory.  Adopting  the  critical  reconstructive  theor}-, 
we  defy  any  person  to  follow  that  thread.  It  is 
broken,  twisted,  and  reduced  to  a  tangle  before  our 
eyes.  Secondly,  on  the  critical  basis  it  is  impos- 
sible to  construct  the  history  of  Judges,  Kings,  and 
Chronicles.      The  theory  destroys  the  history,  and 


GENERAL  HISTORICAL   DEFECTS.  191 

fails  to  reconstruct  it.  This  period  is  confessedly 
difficult,  but  the  conviction  ever  deepens  in  our 
minds  that  the  critical  theory  increases  the  diffi- 
culties which  it  presents  to  the  scholar.  Thirdly, 
the  method  of  historical  reconstruction  which  the 
critics  pursue,  tends  to  reduce  the  history  to  fiction 
or  myth.  If  the  history  be  the  imaginary  filling  in 
of  a  later  age,  how  does  it  deserve  the  name  of 
history  }  If  it  be  all  myth,  gradually  assuming  defi- 
nite form,  the  historical  basis  is  destroyed  al- 
together, and  the  religion  of  Israel  is  mythology. 
If  this  be  the  case,  Christianity  can  scarcely  be  dif- 
ferent in  its  nature.  In  conclusion,  we  charge 
radical  criticism  with  being  utterly  false  and  unsci- 
entific in  its  historical  methods.  Are  the  critics  of 
the  present  day  likely  to  be  better  judges  of  the 
real  history  of  those  ancient  times  than  those  who 
lived  and  wrote  at  or  near  the  period  of  the  events  } 
We  only  wish  that  space  permitted  the  expansion 
of  these  points  which  have  been  merely  mentioned. 


CHAPTER  V. 

PARTICULAR  HISTORICAL  DEFECTS. 

In  the  last  chapter  some  general  historical  tests 
were  applied  to  the  radical  theory,  and  by  this 
means  it  was  found  to  be  defective  at  several 
important  points.  In  this  chapter  the  historical 
criticism  is  continued,  and  some  particular  consid- 
erations are  adduced  in  connection  with  the  con- 
tentions of  advanced  criticism. 

In  the  first  place,  we  allude  to  the  testimony  of 
Josephus,  who  lived  about  the  middle  of  the  first 
century  of  the  Christian  era.  It  is  simply  saying 
what  all  who  have  read  the  writings  of  this  literary 
Jew,  know,  to  remark  that  his  view  of  the  history 
and  religious  development  of  Israel  coincides  with 
the  biblical  theory.  The  same  is  true  not  only  of 
the  early  Jewish  opponents  of  Christianity,  but  also 
of  its  pagan  assailants.  Celsus,  Porphyry,  and 
Julian  agree  in  the  main  with  Josephus  in  regard  to 
the  history  of  Israel. 

Josephus  knows  nothing  of  the  modern  radical 
theory,  and  seems  in  no  degree  to  feel  the  need  of 
reconstructing  the  history  of  Israel.  His  historical 
writings  are  indeed  a  commentary  on  the  history  of 
Israel,  and  of  its  national  and  religious  life  as  de- 
[192] 


PARTICULAR  HISTORICAL   DEFECTS.  193 

picted  in  the  Scriptures.  Now,  Josephus  was  in  a 
position  to  be  as  well  informed  as  any  man  upon 
this  subject.  Surely  he  was  better  able  to  give  an 
opinion  than  the  critics  of  to-day,  who  live  eight- 
een centuries  later  than  he,  and  cannot  possibly 
have  any  additional  materials  in  their  hands.  How 
came  this  learned  Jew  to  fall  into  a  great  error 
which  remained  undiscovered  until  modern  critics 
found  it  out .-'  We  adduce  the  testimony  of  Jose- 
phus against  the  radical  reconstructive  code  theory 
of  the  history,  legislation,  and  ritual  of  Israel,  and 
press  the  critics  for  an  explanation  of  the  facts  in 
the  case  at  this  point. 

In  the  second  place,  we  call  special  attention  to 
the  historical  setting  of  the  whole  Mosaic  religious 
system,  and  wish  to  point  out  how  this  tells  against 
the  hypothesis  of  the  radical  critics  in  general,  es- 
pecially as  to  its  contention  that  not  until  late  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  and  only  by  successive  codes, 
did  the  system  reach  its  complex  maturity.  Against 
the  critics  we  contend  that  the  complete  legislation 
has  its  definite  historical  setting,  according  to  which 
it  looks  back  to  Egypt  and  forward  to  Canaan. 
The  people  are  out  of  Egypt,  but  not  yet  in  Canaan, 
when  the  complete  religious  system  is  given  them. 
The  attempt  of  the  critics  to  turn  the  edge  of  this 
contention  by  saying  that  the  history  has  been 
thrown  back  has  no  sense  or  propriety  in  it.  It  is 
simply  denying  history,  and  rendering  historical  de- 
bate impossible.  What  would  be  the  sense  of 
13 


lO-L  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

describing  the  people  as  not  yet  in  Canaan,  when  as 
a  matter  of  fact  they  had  been  there  for  centuries  ? 
And  wherein  is  the  propriety  of  filHng  in  the  history 
in  later  times  in  this  peculiar  manner,  when  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  whole  is  imaginary? 

Holding  by  the  historicity  of  the  wilderness  ex- 
periences and  doings,  we  quote  a  passage  or  two, 
to  show  that  for  all  the  three  so-called  codes  this 
historical  setting  —  out  of  Egypt,  but  not  yet  in  Ca- 
naan —  holds  good.  In  Ex.  12  -.25,  which  is  part  of 
the  literature  of  the  covenant  code,  we  read,  ' '  And 
it  shall  come  to  pass  when  ye  be  come  to  the  land 
which  the  Lord  will  give  you,  according  as  he  hath 
promised,  that  ye  shall  keep  this  service."  In 
Deut.  I  :  8,  which  is  part  of  the  Deuteronomic 
code,  according  to  the  critics,  that  did  not  come 
into  existence  until  the  days  of  Josiah,  we  read, 
"Behold,  I  have  set  the  land  before  you:  go  in 
and  possess  the  land  which  the  Lord  sware  unto 
your  fathers."  Israel  is  not  yet  in  Canaan.  Will 
the  critics  rise  and  explain  }  Again,  Lev.  14  :  34, 
which  constitutes  the  central  part  of  the  Priestly 
code,  and  which  the  critics  contend  did  not  appear 
until  about  the  days  of  Ezra,  makes  this  remark- 
able statement  :  "  When  ye  be  come  into  the  land 
of  Canaan,  which  I  give  to  you  for  a  possession." 
Israel  is  not  yet  in  Canaan,  in  Ezra's  day.  Will 
the  critics  rise  and  explain  .-'  Once  more,  in  Num. 
15:2,  also  a  part  of  the  literature  of  the  Priestly 
code,  we  find  this  utterance  :    ' '  When  ye  be  come 


PARTICULAR  HISTORICAL  DEFECTS.         195 

into  the  land  of  your  habitations  which  I  give  unto 
you."  Israel  is  not  yet  in  Canaan.  Will  the  critics 
venture  to  explain  these  and  many  similar  passages.'* 

These  are  only  a  tithe  of  the  passages  which 
might  be  quoted  indiscriminately  from  the  litera- 
ture of  all  the  so-called  codes,  to  show  that  when 
the  complete  Mosaic  ritual  and  legal  system  was 
given,  Israel  was  out  of  Egypt  but  not  yet  in 
Canaan.  This  tells  with  fatal  effect  against  the 
notion  of  the  three  codes,  different  in  contents,  and 
far  apart  in  time.  It  also  tells  against  the  opinion 
of  the  critics  that  the  Mosaic  system  was  a  slow 
evolutionary  product,  only  complete  long  after  the 
people  were  in  Canaan.  The  reply  of  the  critics, 
to  the  effect  that  those  historical  allusions  are  not 
to  be  literally  understood,  we  submit,  is  no  answer 
at  all.  To  say  that  these  references  to  historical 
facts  are  merely  the  filling  in  of  the  story,  or  are 
interpolations,  is  simply  to  shirk  the  question,  and 
make  no  reply.  We  therefore  press  the  critics  for 
an  explanation  of  the  well-defined  historical  setting 
of  the  complete  Mosaic  system.  Till  this  on  solid 
historical  grounds  is  given,  we  shall  hold  still  to  the 
old  biblical  view. 

In  the  third  place,  the  natural  historical  expla- 
nation of  the  reform  under  Josiah,  and  of  the  res- 
toration under  Ezra  is  far  more  reasonable  than 
the  hypotheses  of  the  advanced  critics.  We  have 
already  seen  that  radical  criticism  makes  very 
much  of  these  crises  in  the  history  of  Israel.      In 


196  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

connection  with  both,  an  onward  impulse  was 
given  to  the  rehgion  of  Israel,  and  the  Deuteron- 
omic  and  Priestly  codes  then  came  into  existence. 
Against  all  the  elaborate  reasoning  and  baseless 
speculation  of  the  critics  upon  the  events  of  these 
two  great  eras  in  the  career  of  Israel,  we  maintain 
that  the  far  more  natural  and  simple  view  is  to 
regard  them  to  be  what  the  terms  ' '  reform  "  and 
' '  restoration  "  signify. 

Instead  of  the  reform  in  Josiah's  day  being  a  new 
religious  era  marked  by  the  genesis  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code,  it  was  simply  a  reform  which  led  the 
people  from  idolatry  back  to  the  old  paths  of  the 
religion  of  their  fathers,  which  was  contained  in 
the  "  law  given  by  Moses,"  and  which  embraced  in 
its  contents  the  entire  system  with  its  so-called 
three  codes.  To  take  any  other  view,  raises  need- 
less and  endless  difficulties.  How  can  we  reconcile 
with  sound  morality  the  supposition  of  the  critics, 
to  the  effect  that  Hilkiah  and  others  drew  up  the 
book,  brought  it  to  the  king  and  pretended  that  it 
was  found  in  the  Temple  .''  Then  how  came  the 
king  to  be  so  deeply  affected,  if  the  document  was 
merely  a  reform  programme,  and  not  the  old  law 
under  which  he  knew  that  his  fathers  lived  and 
prospered .''  And,  again,  how  could  Hilkiah  and 
the  king  foist  upon  the  people  something  so  en- 
tirely new,  without  calling  forth  their  opposition  } 
It  could  scarcely  be,  even  during  the  sixty  years  of 
idolatry  in  the  reigns  of  the  father  and  grandfather 


PARTICULAR   HISTORICAL   DEFECTS.  197 

of  Josiah,  that  all  knowledge  of  the  old  law  and  its 
prescriptions  had  died  out.  If  it  had,  the  difficulty 
of  bringing  in  an  entirely  new  order  of  things  would 
be  very  great ;  yet  no  such  difficulty  appears  on  the 
part  of  the  people.  If  there  still  remained  some 
true,  devout  souls,  then  the  bringing  forth  of  the 
book  and  the  institution  of  the  reform  according  to 
its  prescriptions  would  meet  their  approval.  But 
to  impose  a  new  scheme  upon  such  people  would 
be  almost  sure  to  arouse  opposition.  The  biblical 
view  has  the  merit  of  being  the  simple  and  natural 
one,  while  the  critical  theory  is  burdened  with  diffi- 
culties from  which  it  can  afford  no  relief. 

So  in  reference  to  the  restoration  from  the  Exile 
in  the  dark  days  of  Ezra.  That  Ezra  and  others 
produced  during  the  Exile  the  elaborate  Priestly 
code  is  an  assumption  for  which  no  good  proof  is 
adduced.  That  the  contents  of  that  code  did  not 
exist  prior  to  the  Exile  is  not  proved  by  the  critics. 
The  carrying  away  of  the  furniture  and  vessels  of 
the  Temple  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  ritual 
with  which  these  things  were  associated  was  actually 
in  force  before  the  Exile.  Then  the  whole  history 
of  the  restoration  looks  as  if  the  people  were  return- 
ing to  the  old  order  of  things,  which  had  been  in- 
terrupted for  the  seventy  years  of  exile.  Indeed, 
a  strong  case  might,  in  our  judgment,  be  made  out 
for  the  view  that  had  the  completed  Mosaic  ritual 
and  legislation  not  existed  prior  to  the  Exile,  it 
could  not  have  been  brought  to  its  maturity  during 


198  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

that  dark  era  ;  and  that,  unless  we  presuppose  the 
completed  system  of  law  and  ritual,  the  restoration 
itself  would  scarcely  have  been  possible.  The 
critics  can  only  give  plausibility  to  their  theories  by 
treating  these  periods  unnaturally,  and  by  virtually 
ignoring  plain,  simple,  historical  narratives.  But 
this  is  surely  uncritical  criticism  ! 

In  the  fourth  place,  there  are  several  clear  his- 
torical facts  which  tell  with  much  force  against  the 
radical  explanation  of  the  history  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. There  are  many  of  these  which  might  be 
adduced,  but  we  select  only  two  as  samples  of  the 
rest,  and  as  showing  how  very  unhistorical  radical 
criticism  actually  becomes. 

The  first  case  has  reference  to  the  choice  of  a 
king  by  Israel.  This  is  found  in  Deut.  17  :  14-20, 
a  passage  too  long  to  quote  here,  but  which  we  ad- 
vise our  readers  to  look  into  carefully.  Here  we 
have  the  directions  given,  before  the  people  have 
entered  Canaan,  as  to  the  choice  of  a  king  in  after 
days,  and  advice  set  down  for  the  guidance  of  the 
king.  Now,  mark  that,  according  to  the  critics, 
this  passage  stands  in  the  Deuteronomic  code  which 
they  further  tell  us  did  not  exist  or  come  into  force 
till  near  the  time  of  Josiah,  at  least  eight  centuries 
after  the  people  had  been  at  Sinai.  The  absurdity 
is  evident,  unless  we  allow  the  critics  to  turn  the 
history  upside  down.  What  would  be  the  sense  in 
giving  rules  about  the  selection  of  a  king,  and  of 
telling  the  king  what  manner  of  man  he  should  be, 


PARTICULAR  HISTORICAL  DEFECTS.  199 

when  the  people  already  had  had  kings  for  three  or 
four  centuries  ?  We  wait  patiently  for  the  critics' 
answer. 

The  second  illustration  of  the  inversion  of  history, 
of  which  radical  criticism  is  guilty,  is  in  reference 
to  the  destruction  of  the  Amalekites.  In  Deut. 
25:  19,  we  have  the  command  "to  blot  out  the 
remembrance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven." 
Then  in  i  Sam.  30,  we  have  an  account  of  the  utter 
destruction  of  Amalek  in  the  days  of  David.  Now, 
mark  again,  that  the  command  to  blot  out  Amalek 
was  given  in  what  is  part  of  the  Deuteronomic  code, 
which  the  critics  place  near  Josiah's  time,  and  the 
command  has  been  completely  fulfilled  in  the  days 
of  David,  over  three  centuries  before  the  age  of 
Josiah.  What  would  be  the  sense  of  giving  a  com- 
mand to  destroy  a  people,  when  the  people  in  ques- 
tion did  not  exist .''  We  await  the  answer  of  the 
critics  here  with  patience. 

We  are  aware  of  the  attempts  made  by  the  radi- 
cal critics  to  turn  the  edge  of  such  sharp  criticism 
as  these  particular  historic  facts  make  of  their 
theory.  We  know  how  they  attempt  to  juggle 
with  history,  and  turn  chronology  upside  down. 
Ruled  by  the  terms  of  their  own  theories,  they  do 
not  hesitate  to  rule  out  history  altogether,  and  re- 
construct the  history  or  .allege  interpolation.  Re- 
jecting the  natural  biblical  views  of  the  religion  and 
history  of  Israel  on  account  of  their  supposed  diffi- 
culties, they  give  us  schemes  which  are   far  more 


200  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

complicated,  and  require  greater  faith  to  accept. 
And,  further,  they  overlook  the  fact  that  the  reality 
of  the  history  is  always  presupposed  by  the  Psalms 
and  Prophecy  of  later  days.  In  these,  the  history 
itself  is  often  recounted  in  a  wa}'  which  is  totally 
inexplicable  on  the  critical  basis.  We  hesitate  not 
to  charge  radical  criticism  with  being  unhistorical 
while  professing  to  be  historical,  and  with  being 
uncritical  while  claiming  to  be  highly  critical,  and, 
above  all,  with  giving  us  an  ill-constructed  scheme 
in  which  difficulties  are  made  or  magnified,  and 
faith  in  the  Scriptures  placed  under  a  severer  strain 
than  it  can  possibly  be  by  the  biblical  theory. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS. 

Two  chapters  have  been  devoted  to  criticism  of 
the  philosophical  aspects  of  radical  theories  of  the 
religion  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  two  have 
dealt  with  some  historical  lines  of  examination 
bearing  upon  the  soundness  of  these  theories.  We 
found  in  these  chapters  that  the  philosophy  in- 
volved was  defective,  and  that  the  radical  theories 
of  the  critics  would  not  stand  the  test  of  historical 
inquiry. 

With  this  chapter  we  enter  upon  other  lines  of 
examination,  and  take  up,  first  of  all,  the  docu- 
iiientary  JiypotJicsis.  We  shall  look  at  this  hy- 
pothesis on  its  own  merits,  and  consider  also  the 
use  which  radical  criticism  makes  of  this  hypothesis 
in  its  support.  In  general,  the  critics  maintain 
that  the  Old  Testament  books  were  not  produced 
by  single  authors,  but  are  composite  productions, 
resulting  from  the  work  of  compiling  and  recasting 
by  successive  hands,  documents  of  various  kinds 
which  already  existed.  On  a  large  scale,  therefore, 
the  documentary  hypothesis  is  pressed  into  the 
service   of   the  reconstructive    theories.      Into  this 

[20I] 


202  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

feature  of  radical  criticism  this  chapter  makes 
inquiry. 

In  the  first  place,  we  beg  to  remind  our  readers 
of  the  source  whence  this  hypothesis  at  first 
emerged,  and  of  the  use  then  made  of  it.  In 
the  history  of  radical  criticism  given  in  the  open- 
ing chapters  of  this  book,  it  was  pointed  out  that 
we  owe  the  documentary  hypothesis  in  its  complete 
form  to  Astruc,  a  physician  at  Paris.  Whether  he 
intended  it  or  not,  we  find,  and  that  without  any 
protest  from  him,  that  this  documentary  scheme 
was  used  by  infidelity  to  break  down  the  integrity 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  greatly  lessen  their  di- 
vine authority  by  giving  undue  prominence  to  the 
human  element  in  them.  So  we  see  that  this 
hypothesis  was  born  outside  the  Church,  and  for  a 
time  was  the  open  foe  of  revealed  religion.  In  our 
judgment,  it  still  is,  if  not  a  secret  enemy,  at  least 
a  dangerous  ally  of  evangelical  views  of  revealed 
truth. 

In  the  second  place,  we  take  the  position  that 
advanced  criticism  makes  far  too  much  of  the 
notion  of  various  documents  which  are  supposed  to 
have  been  used  very  extensively  by  the  authors  of 
the  sacred  books.  We  are  not  concerned  to  deny 
that  in  some  cases  the  authors  of  the  sacred  Script- 
ures may,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
have  used  pre-existing  writings  or  documents.  This 
is  possible,  in  our  judgment,  in  the  case  of  some  of 
the  writings  of  Moses.      In  the  case  of  the  books  of 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS.  203 

Kings  and  Chronicles,  it  is  much  more  hkely  that 
their  author,  or  authors,  used  previously  existing 
documents.  So  perhaps  in  the  Psalter  we  have 
there  some  sacred  songs  which  were  already  extant, 
as  we  find  some  of  these  psalms,  in  substance,  in  the 
historical  books.  But  what  we  contend  for  against 
radical  criticism  is  the  position  that  it  makes  far  too 
much  of  the  documentary  hypothesis,  and  that  it 
pushes  what,  at  best,  is  an  unproved  assumption, 
to  an  extreme  which  cannot  be  justified  by  the  facts 
in  the  case.  We  wish  that  we  had  space  to  illus- 
trate the  method  of  the  critics  at  this  point.  The 
reader  will  recall  the  symbols  "J,"  "E,"  "JE," 
"D,"  "P,"  and  "  R, "  each  of  which  represents  a  dif- 
ferent series  of  documents,  which,  together,  were 
finally  wrought  up  into  a  composite  whole.  In  this 
way,  and  in  an  almost  entirely  naturalistic  manner, 
the  Scriptures  grew  and  grew  till  they  reached  their 
final  stage.  We  here  charge  radical  criticism  with 
laying  far  too  much  stress  on  this  hypothesis,  and 
we  simply  demand  proof  clear  and  complete  that 
such  documents  existed,  and  that  they  were  used 
as  largely  by  the  authors  of  the  various  books  of  the 
Bible,  as  the  critics  supposed  they  were.  Will  the 
critics  give  the  proof  .-• 

In  the  third  place,  we  take  a  step  further,  and 
allege  that  the  procedure  of  the  critics  at  this  point 
is  entirely  superficial.  It  busies  itself  with  the  lit- 
erary form  of  the  Scriptures,  and  reaches  conclu- 
sions, not  by  presenting  external  proof  but  by  the 


204  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

exercise  of  subjective  opinions.  Perhaps  we  can  do 
nothing  better  here  than  to  give  an  illustration  or 
two  taken  from  Driver,  who,  though  largely  a  fol- 
lower of  Dillmann,  cannot  by  any  means  be  called 
an  extremely  radical  critic,  for  he  does  not  profess- 
edly discard  belief  in  the  supernatural.  Let  the 
reader  open  his  Bible  at  Genesis  37,  where  the  story 
of  Joseph  begins,  and  follow  the  analysis  of  Driver. 
From  the  middle  of  verse  2  to  the  end  of  verse  1 1 
belongs  to  the  document  "  E, "  then  from  verse  12 
to  verse  21,  we  have  an  extract  from  the  writing 
known  as  "J."  From  verse  22  to  verse  24,  "E" 
comes  in  again,  to  be  followed  by  verses  25-27  from 
"J."  Then  will  the  reader  specially  note  the  docu- 
mentary analysis  of  verse  28.  From  the  beginning 
of  the  verse  down  to  the  word  "pit,"  we  have 
"  E  ;  "  from  "  pit  "  down  to  ' '  silver, "  "  J  "  comes 
in  ;  then  from  "  silver"  to  the  end  of  the  verse,  we 
are  assured  that  "  E  "  is  the  source,  as  also  it  is  of 
the  passage  on  to  the  close  of  verse  30.  To  com- 
plete the  analysis  of  the  chapter,  verses  31-35  are 
taken  from  "  J, "  and  verse  36  reverts  again  to  "  E. " 
For  another  example,  take  the  first  two  chapters 
of  Exodus.  Here  i  :  1-7  comes  from  "  P  ;  "  i  :  8- 
12  from  "  E  ;  "  i  :  13,  14  from  "  P  ; "  i  :  15-22 
from  "E"  again.  So,  also,  2:  1-23  to  the  word 
"died,"  in  verse  23,  is  due  to  "E,"  and  from 
"died"  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  we  find  "  P" 
again  the  source.  As  a  concluding  example,  let  the 
reader  turn  to  Joshua  5-8,  where  Driver  gives  the 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS.  205 

following  analysis  :  Here  5  :  i  belongs  to  a  docu- 
ment known  as  "D2,"  verses  2,  3  to  "J  E,"  and 
verses  4-7  come  again  from  "  D.,,  "while  verses  8,  9 
are  from  "JE."  Then  "P"  appears,  giving  us 
verses  10-12,  followed  again  by  "J  E,"  who  com- 
pletes chapter  5,  and  gives  us  the  whole  of  chapter 
6.  For  chapter  7  "P"  gives  us  verse  i;  "J  E" 
verses  2-26.  "J  E"  also  provides  us  with  chapter 
8  :  1-29,  and  "  Do"  turns  up  to  give  us  verses  30- 
35  of  this  chapter. 

These  illustrations  will  suffice  to  exhibit  the  docu- 
mentary methods  of  even  moderate  critics,  and  at 
the  same  time  will  go  far  to  justify  the  charge  we 
are  now  making  against  radical  criticism,  to  the 
effect  that  it  is  entirely  superficial.  It  might  very 
properly  be  added  that  it  is  also  entirely  artificial. 
Could  anything  be  more  artificial  than  the  manner 
in  which  Gen.  37  :  28  is  analyzed.  It  is  cut  into 
three  fragments,  two  of  which  come  from  "E," 
and  one  in  the  middle  of  the  verse  comes  from  "J." 
Then,  too,  we  may  not  forget  that  the  critics  are 
not  at  all  agreed  as  to  the  precise  way  in  which  the 
analysis  of  passages  should  be  made.  If  we  had 
space  to  compare  half  a  dozen  critics  on  any  single 
passage,  we  would  see  more  fully  how  superficial 
and  artificial  the  whole  procedure  is.  Each  critic 
is  a  law  unto  himself,  and  when  we  seek  to  gather 
up  "  the  assured  results  of  modern  scholarship,"  we 
find  no  results  in  which  the  majority  of  the  critics 
are  agreed.     We  believe  that  conservative  criticism 


20B  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

has  a  splendid  campaign  before  it  at  this  point  in 
the  controversy  if  it  will  simply  follow  step  by  step 
the  tracks  of  the  critics,  and  show  how  superficial 
their  work  must  of  necessity  be  at  every  step. 

In  the  fourth  place,  we  take  the  ground  against 
radical  criticism  that,  even  if  the  Scriptures  were 
composed  after  the  manner  which  the  critics  allege, 
the  proof  of  that  fact  cannot  now  be  adduced. 
The  critics  can  at  this  day  only  suppose  the  exist- 
ence of  these  various  documents.  They  cannot  tell 
us  who  their  authors  were,  and  what  the  circum- 
stances of  their  production.  They  only  assume 
their  existence,  label  these  hypothetical  documents 
with  certain  symbols  and  proceed  with  their  critical 
processes.  The  Scriptures  afford  no  clear  proof  of 
the  existence,  on  such  a  large  scale,  of  extant  docu- 
ments, and  still  less  is  there  proof  that  the  authors 
of  the  sacred  books  used  them  in  such  a  wholesale 
way  as  the  critics  assert.  Now,  surely  the  con- 
servative critics  are  not  to  be  blamed  for  declining 
to  join  the  radicals,  at  least  until  the  latter  give 
some  reasonable  proof  for  all  they  say  about  the 
documentary  composition  of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
Mere  suppositions  are  not  enough,  nor  will  the 
unsupported  opinion  of  a  critic,  no  matter  how 
boldly  expressed,  carry  much  weight  until  the  re- 
liable historical  evidence  is  forthcoming.  This 
proof,  we  assert,  is  not  presented  by  the  critics, 
and  from  the  nature  of  the  case  most  of  the  evi- 
dence does  not  now  exist.      How  absurd  the  claims 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS.  207 

of  the  critics  really  are,  and  how  unlikely  that  their 
views  shall  permanently  prevail !  The  whole  pro- 
cedure is  far  more  like  a  product  of  the  imagination 
than  the  result  of  sober  criticism. 

In  the  fifth  place,  reasons  can  so  far  be  given  for 
the  use  of  the  divine  names  Jehovah  and  Elohim, 
without  assuming  distinct  documents  and  different 
authors  of  these  documents.  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  first  hint  of  the  documentary  hy- 
pothesis was  given  to  Astruc  from  the  way  in  which 
these  divine  names  were  found  in  Genesis.  Find- 
ing these  names  used  separately  and  conjointly 
in  certain  passages,  the  conclusion  was  reached 
that  there  must  have  been  separate  documents 
from  which  the  compiler  of  Genesis  drew  his  mate- 
rials. The  hint  thus  given  was  by  other  writers 
extended  to  the  whole  Pentateuch  at  least,  and  the 
existence  and  use  of  a  great  many  documents  \/as 
assumed  by  the  critics.  Now  against  this  view  it 
can  be  shown,  with  a  good  deal  of  certainty,  that 
these  names  denote  different  aspects  of  the  Divine 
Being,  and  that  the  name  of  the  Almighty  which 
occurs  in  any  special  passage  agrees  with  the  gen- 
eral subject  matter  of  that  passage.  Hence,  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  we  naturally  expect  Elohim, 
which  denotes  God  as  natural  Creator,  and  in  the 
second  chapter  we  find  Jehovah-Elohim,  and  see 
the  propriety  of  this  in  the  fact  that  besides  the  no- 
tion of  Creator,  the  fact  of  revelation  appears.  So 
in  the  twelfth  chapter,  when  the  covenant  is  made 


208  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

with  Abraham,  the  name  Jehovah  alone  properly 
appears.  In  this  consistent  usage  of  these  names 
we  have  a  natural  explanation  of  the  facts  of  which 
the  documentary  hypothesis  gives  us  at  best  but  a 
clumsy  explanation,  and  one  v/hich  when  pushed 
to  its  critical  extreme  is  simply  absurd.  The  hy- 
pothesis,   therefore,    is  needless. 

In  the  last  place,  the  literary  anal3'sis  of  the 
documentary  hypothesis,  as  proposed  by  radical 
critics,  threatens  to  destroy  the  wonderful  organic 
unity  of  the  Scriptures.  The  fact  of  this  unity  has 
always  been  noticed.  This  very  remarkable  col- 
lection of  writings,  made  by  men  of  different  ages, 
lands,  and  literary  ability,  has  yet  a  most  remarkable 
unity,  which  can  be  properly  described  by  no  other 
term  than  the  word  organic.  Now  we  maintain 
against  the  critics  that  the  literary  dissection  made 
by  them  threatens  the  organic  life  of  the  volume. 
Their  procedure  is  as  if  a  living  body  were  placed 
on  the  table,  and  the  lance  of  dissection  applied  to 
it.  If  the  dissection  be  carried  out,  the  life  of  the 
body  is  destroyed,  and  a  corpse  is  the  result.  So 
with  the  radical  critics  and  their  literary  methods  as 
now  before  us.  They  take  the  Scriptures  as  a  liv- 
ing organic  unit,  subject  them  to  the  dismember- 
ment of  the  lance  of  literary  criticism,  and  the 
result  is  that  the  unity  is  broken,  and  the  organic 
life  is  destroyed.  In  this  way,  one  of  the  chief 
proofs  of  the  divinity  and  inspiration  of  the  book 
is  destroyed,  and  it  is  virtually  killed  by  the  critics 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS.  209 

so  far  as  it  is  the  living  word  of  God.  We  charge 
radical  criticism  with  literary  vivisection,  so  cruel 
that  it  theatens  to  destroy  the  organic  divine  life 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  The  next  chapter  deals 
with  the  postulate  of  the  three  codes  which  is 
closely  related  to  the  documentary  hypothesis. 


14 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  THREE  CODES. 

Closely  connected  with  the  documentary  hy- 
pothesis in  the  radical  theory  is  the  supposition  of 
tlircc  distinct  legal  and  ritual  codes  in  the  com- 
pleted Mosaic  system.  This  chapter  proceeds  to 
examine  this  supposition,  which  in  various  forms  is 
an  essential  part  of  the  radical  schemes.  In  brief, 
as  already  explained  in  a  former  chapter,  the  hy- 
pothesis of  the  three  codes  presents  the  view  that 
in  mature  Mosaism,  as  set  forth  in  the  early  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  there  are  three 
distinct  and  different  ritual  and  legal  schemes  which 
are  diverse  at  several  essential  points,  and  which 
came  into  existence  and  observance  at  long  inter- 
vals of  time  from  each  other.  These  are  called 
the  Covenant,  the  Deuteronomic,  and  the  Priestly 
codes,  respectively.  This  position  of  radical  criti- 
cism at  this  point  is  to  be  examined  in  this  chapter 
with  some  care. 

In  the  first  place,  we  raise  the  question  whether 
there  are  or  ever  were  really  three  codes,  different 
in  their  contents  and  belonging  to  ages  widely  apart 
from  each  other  in  time.  Have  the  critics  not  as- 
sumed the  three  codes  without  good  grounds }     Has 

[210] 


THE   THREE   CODES.  211 

radical  criticism  produced  sufficient  proof  of  its  sup- 
position concerning  the  codes  ?  Are  there  such 
radical  differences  between  these  three  so-called 
codes  as  to  necessitate  a  distinctive  origin  for  each  ? 
And  do  the  critics  give  satisfactory  reasons  for  as- 
suming that  the  three  codes  came  successively  into 
existence  with  several  centuries  intervening  be- 
tween them  ? 

Much  that  has  already  been  said  in  the  chapter 
upon  the  historical  defects  of  the  radical  theory, 
and  upon  the  weakness  of  the  documentary  hy- 
pothesis, has  force  under  this  head.  The  critics 
actually  make  such  an  analysis  of  the  literature  as 
necessitates  codification  of  the  ritual,  whereas  if 
the  natural  historical  view  of  the  literature  be 
taken,  there  will  be  no  necessity  for  assuming  the 
diverse  and  successive  codes  at  all.  Here  again  we 
call  upon  the  critics  to  give  us  the  proof  of  the 
assertion  that  there  are,  or  ever  were,  three  dis- 
tinct codes  of  law  and  ritual  in  force  in  Israel  at 
different  periods  of  its  history.  As  proof  we  ask 
for  something  more  than  the  opinion  of  the  critic  ; 
we  demand  the  historical  evidence  which  a  matter 
of  fact  like  this  always  should  have  for  its  support. 
Instead  of  interpreting  the  history  in  the  light  of 
three  codes,  we  demand  proof  from  the  history  to 
justify  the  assumption  that  there  are  three  codes. 

In  the  second  place,  it  may  be  shown  that  the 
so-called  three  codes,  instead  of  being  diverse  and 
successive,  so  involve  each  other  that  they  must  be 


212  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

held  to  be  a  unit  and  contemporaneous.  To  work 
this  point  out  fully  would  require  more  space  than 
we  have  at  our  command  in  this  series  of  chapters. 
It  would  require  a  careful  comparison,  not  only  of 
the  points  of  difference  in  the  codes  upon  which 
the  radical  critics  lay  so  much  stress,  but  a  com- 
parison of  those  resemblances  which  are  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  show  that  the  codes  involve  each 
other.  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
contents  of  the  Covenant  code  were  given  first  in 
order,  and  then,  as  the  history  of  what  took  place 
at  Sinai  shows,  the  elaboration  of  what  the  critics 
call  the  Priest's  code  immediately  followed  .''  And, 
after  the  wilderness  wandering  was  over,  as  the 
history  again  suggests,  we  find  that  the  so-called 
Deuteronomic  code  was  given,  chiefly  as  a  sum- 
mary of  the  other  codes,  but  partly  also  embracing 
some  new  laws  ;  and  the  whole  was  given  complete 
as  a  complex  unit  before  the  people  entered  Ca- 
naan at  all.  It  clearly  rests  upon  the  radical  critics 
to  show  that  this  is  not  the  true  state  of  the  case. 
To  assume  the  evolutionary  theory  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  religion  of  Israel,  which  has  been  al- 
ready criticised,  and  then  to  assume  that  the  three 
codes  must  have  come  into  existence  in  the  order  of 
their  complexity,  and  during  a  period  of  several 
centuries,  is  not  to  adduce  proof  of  the  existence 
and  differences  in  these  assumed  codes.  We  de- 
mand the  proof. 


THE    THREE    CODES.  213 

This  proof  we  have  already  found  wanting,  and 
so  now  we  set  aside  the  reasoning  based  on  it  in 
support  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  three  codes  in  the 
Mosaic  system.  As  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
we  have  three  persons  in  one  essence,  not  three 
Deities,  so  in  the  rehgion  of  Israel  we  have  three 
phases  or  stages  of  one  divinely  originated  system 
of  ritual  and  legislation,  which  so  involve  each 
other  as  to  be  incapable  of  actual  separation,  and 
which  together  constituted  the  ideal  according  to 
which  the  whole  subsequent  religious  life  and  ac- 
tivity of  Israel  were  to  be  framed.  That  they 
came  short  of  this  ideal  many  a  time  may  be  the 
sad  fact,  but  this  shortcoming  by  no  means  proves 
the  non-existence  of  the  ideal  from  the  beginning. 

In  the  third  place,  we  point  out  the  fact  that 
the  radical  critics  are  not  at  all  agreed  as  to  the 
order  of  succession  in  which  the  three  codes  came 
into  existence.  The  strict  Wellhausen  school  argue 
that  the  order  is  :  Covenant  code,  Deuteronomic 
code,  Priestly  code.  The  first  originated  about  the 
time  of  Moses  ;  the  second  near  the  days  of 
Josiah  ;  the  third  sprang  up  at  the  era  of  the 
Exile.  But  there  is  a  very  influential  school  of 
critics  represented  by  writers  like  Schrader,  Dill- 
mann,  and  others,  who  give  the  order  to  be  :  Cove- 
nant, Priestly,  and  Deuteronomic  codes.  This 
view  is  fatal  to  the  Wellhausen  contention  concern- 
ing the  order  of  the  codes  as  represented  by  Eng- 


214  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

lish  speaking  critics  like  Driver  and  Cheyne.  In 
this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  notice  the  fact 
that  Klostermann,  professor  of  Old  Testament 
Exegesis  in  the  University  of  Kiel,  is  recently  out 
in  a  series  of  effective  philippics  against  the  extrava- 
gant results  and  indefensible  critical  methods  of  the 
Wellhausen  School.  Then,  too,  there  is  no  suffi- 
cient agreement  among  the  critics  as  to  what  ele- 
ments of  the  complete  Mosaic  system  are  to  be 
assigned  to  each  code,  nor  as  to  the  precise  rela- 
tions which  subsist  among  the  various  strata  of 
legislation  which  together  make  up  mature  Mosaism. 
So  long  as  the  critics  continue  to  wage  civil  war 
among  themselves,  we  need  not  be  disturbed.  We 
may  wait  with  patience  till  the  critics  settle  at 
least  their  main  positions.  The  contention  of 
Dillmann  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  is  last  in 
order,  is  certainly  a  concession  to  the  views  of  con- 
servative criticism,  and  the  onslaught  of  Kloster- 
mann upon  the  main  positions  of  the  Wellhausen 
school,  should  certainly  call  a  halt  on  the  part  of 
Anglo-Saxon  critics,  many  of  whom  seem  to  have 
gone  over,  bag  and  baggage,  to  the  Wellhausen 
camp.  Perhaps  we  shall  find  after  all,  when 
the  din  of  critical  warfare  has  ceased,  that  ' '  the 
assured  results  of  modern  scholarship "  are  not  so 
fully  assured  as  was  claimed,  and  that  the  conserva- 
tive critics  are  not  only  in  full  possession  of  the  field 
but  more  firmly  entrenched  there  than  ever  before. 


THE    THREE    CODES.  215 

In  the  fourth  place,  assuming  the  historicity  of 
the  Old  Testament  narratives,  it  is  possible  to  trace 
the  existence  of  the  Priest's  code  back  from  the 
days  of  Ezra,  and  of  the  Deuteronomic  code  back 
from  the  time  of  Josiah  to  the  period  of  the  con- 
quest of  Canaan.  This,  again,  is  a  position  the 
proof  of  which  cannot  be  exhibited  at  length  in  our 
present  limits,  but  we  believe  that  it  presents  a 
most  effective  line  of  criticism  upon  the  hypothesis 
of  the  three  codes,  and  so  upon  the  very  citadel  of 
the  radical  critical  theory.  If  the  conservative 
critics  begin  with  mature  Mosaism  at  the  time  of 
Ezra,  and  by  means  of  the  historical  allusions  to 
the  contents  of  the  Priest's  code  found  in  the  his- 
torical books,  and  also,  by  means  of  the  writings  of 
the  prophets,  are  able  to  trace  the  Priest's  code  at 
least  to  a  period  prior  to  the  date  when  the  critics 
assert  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  came  into  exist- 
ence, and  when,  of  course,  only  the  Covenant  code 
existed,  they  have  successfully  assailed  the  critical 
theory  of  the  three  codes.  This  we  firmly  believe 
conservative  criticism  can  do.  Indeed,  it  has  done 
so  already  in  general  terms,  but  the  door  is  open 
for  the  conservatives  to  do  still  more  effective  work 
along  this  pathway  then  even  Robertson,  in  his 
"Early  Religion  of  Israel,"  has  so  ably  done  in  the 
limits  at  his  disposal  in  that  treatise.  Recent  ar- 
ticles by  Dr.  W.  Henry  Green,  of  Princeton,  are  of 
much  value  in  this  connection. 


216  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

The  evasions  of  the  critics,  which  they  attempt 
to  make  again  and  again,  to  ward  off  the  force  of 
this  hne  of  criticism,  by  denying  the  real  historicity 
of  the  narratives  accompanying  the  codes,  is  either 
unjustifiable,  or  suicidal.  It  is  unjustifiable  we 
fully  believe,  and  utterly  rash  and  foolhardy  to  jug- 
gle thus  with  the  history  under  the  intoxicating 
effects  of  a  theory.  But  even  if  the  critical  treat- 
ment of  the  history  be  admitted  as  valid,  we  charge 
it  with  being  suicidal,  for  the  same  reasoning  which 
reduces  the  histor}^  to  fiction  or  myth,  will  also  re- 
duce the  contents  of  the  codes  to  the  same  category. 
Then  assuredly  the  religion  of  Israel  becomes  myth- 
ology, and  the  historic  basis  of  Christianity  is  for- 
ever destroj-ed. 

In  the  last  place,  we  beg  the  radical  critics  to 
tell  us  how  it  came  to  pass  that  the  people  of  Israel 
in  successive  ages,  as  the  several  codes  came  into 
existence,  and  the  literature  exhibiting  them  took 
its  form,  always  attributed  the  whole  to  Moses  and 
his  age.  In  some  way  the  people  were  led  to 
believe  that  by  him  the  laws  of  the  several  codes 
were  enacted,  by  him  the  ritual  of  the  codes  in 
order  was  prescribed,  and  by  him  even  most  of  the 
literature  was  put  into  definite  shape.  We  ask  for 
an  explanation  of  these  facts  on  the  critical  basis. 
It  is  evident  that  the  name  of  Moses  carried  very 
great  weight,  and,  we  ask,  how  did  it  acquire  all 
this  authority,  unless  he  had  had  far  more  to  do 
with  the  genesis  of  the  religion  of  Israel  than  the 


THE    THREE    CODES.  217 

radical  theory  allows  ?  Passing  by  altogether  the 
difficulty  of  literary  imposture,  which  the  critics  are 
bound  to  face  here,  surely  the  natural  explanation 
of  the  facts  is  that  Moses  was  the  medium  by 
whom  the  complete  system  bearing  his  name  was 
given  by  Jehovah  to  the  people,  and  that  to  his 
hand  we  owe  the  main  body  of  the  writings  which 
contain  that  system.  This  is  the  simple,  natural 
view  to  which  we  believe  that  we  may  still  adhere, 
while  the  critical  theory  of  the  codes  is  unnatural 
and  hampered  by  endless  difficulties.  When  will 
the  critics  be  content  with  simplicity  and  natu- 
ralness .'' 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

DEUTERONOMY. 

Having  in  the  last  chapter  made  a  brief  examina- 
tion of  the  hypothesis  of  the  three  codes,  and  hav- 
ing found  that  it  was  open  to  criticism  at  several 
vulnerable  points,  we  proceed  in  this  chapter  to 
consider  in  a  more  definite  way  the  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, and  to  determine  the  place  it  really  holds 
in  the  Mosaic  system. 

The  topic  to  be  thus  considered  in  this  chapter 
is  one  of  cardinal  importance  in  the  controversy 
between  conservative  and  radical  criticism.  How 
is  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  scheme  of  law 
and  ritual  which  it  represents  to  be  understood  .■* 
Is  it  the  second  stage  in  the  development  of  the 
Mosaic  system,  which  was  the  product  of  natural 
evolution  of  religion  among  the  people  of  Israel, 
or  is  it  a  summary  and  recapitulation,  with  some 
slight  additions,  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  made  by 
Moses  on  the  eve  of  their  entry  into  Canaan  ? 
Radical  criticism  in  a  general  way  takes  the  former 
view  ;  and  yet  not  with  entire  uniformity,  as  we 
have  already  seen.  Then  even  these  radical  critics 
who  hold,  as  the  Wellhausen  school  does,  that 
Deuternomic  legislation  only  came  into  existence  in 
[218] 


DEUTERONOMY.  219 

Josiah's  day,  are  by  no  means  agreed  as  to  the  pre- 
cise mode  by  which  it  came  into  existence.  Some 
are  inchned  to  the  view  that  it  came  suddenly  into 
existence  as  a  program  of  reform  ;  others  prefer  to 
hold  that  the  legislation  previously  existed  among 
the  people  as  an  oral  code,  and  was  reduced  to 
written  codified  form  shortly  before  the  days  of 
Josiah. 

Then  as  to  the  relation  between  Deuteronomy 
and  its  code  and  the  Covenant  code  of  the  Jeho- 
vistic  documents,  the  critics  have  not  yet  reached 
harmony  of  opinion.  How  much  of  the  Covenant 
code  is  implied  in  the  Deuteronomic,  how  far 
monotheism  is  due  to  the  Deuteronomic  code,  and 
to  what  extent  the  Covenant  code  prescribed  wor- 
ship only  at  one  central  sanctuary,  are  questions 
upon  which  criticism  of  the  radical  type  has  not 
yet  given  us  its  "  assured  results."  To  press  this 
lack  of  agreement  against  radical  criticism  at  this 
point  is  really  a  complete  refutation  of  its  conten- 
tions concerning  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  so  that 
we  might  arrest  our  critique  with  having  pointed 
out  this  fact.  Still  we  may  carry  the  war  into 
Africa  against  radical  criticism,  and  in  this  chapter 
we  propose  to  examine  some  of  its  reasonings 
connected  with  the  problem  presented  by  Deuter- 
onomy. 

In  the  first  place,  assuming  the  real  historical 
nature  of  the  narratives  contained  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy,  we  claim  that  the   natural  view  to 


220  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

take  of  it  is  that  it  is  Mosaic,  in  the  sense  at  least 
that  it  belongs  to  the  age  of  Moses  and  took  its 
complete  form  at  least  prior  to  the  conquest  of 
Canaan  under  Joshua.  The  contents  of  the  first 
chapter  sound  the  historic  keynote  at  this  point. 
The  repetition  of  the  decalogue  was  the  most 
natural  thing  in  the  circumstances,  and  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  promises  and  the  threatenings  at 
the  close  of  the  book  was  entirely  suitable  to  the 
status  of  the  people  when  they  were  just  about  to 
enter  the  land  of  promise.  We  ask  the  critics  to 
show  any  sort  of  plausibility  in  having  these  prom- 
ises and  threatenings  made  after  the  people  had 
been  in  the  land  for  centuries,  as  their  theory  im- 
plies. 

The  contention  of  the  critics  at  this  point  that 
the  ritual  code  did  not  exist  at  the  time  of  the  Con- 
quest, but  that  the  history  to  which  we  have  al- 
luded was  written  up  in  later  times,  and  was 
projected  back  to  fill  up  the  narrative,  is  idle  and 
absurd.  We  are  getting  tired  of  this  absurd  con- 
tention. If  the  history  though  written  later  re- 
cords the  real  process  cf  events,  then  it  is  real 
history,  and  it  carries  the  code  with  it.  The  only 
escape  from  this  conclusion  is  by  attempting  the 
impossible  feat  of  separating  the  history  and  the 
ritual.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  professed  nar- 
ratives are  fictitious,  then  there  is  an  end  of  de- 
bate, and  the  whole  is  a  work  of  ingenious  fiction. 


DE  UTER  ONOMY.  221 

In  the  second  place,  those  laws  which  the  critics 
say  are  peculiar  to  Deuteronomy  are  just  such  as 
we  would  expect  to  be  given  prior  to  the  entrance 
of  the  people  into  Canaan.  Then,  further,  there 
are  laws  which  could  have  meaning  to  the  people 
only  in  prospect  of  setting  their  feet  in  Canaan,  as, 
for  example,  the  division  of  the  land  among  the 
tribes,  and  the  regulations  regarding  landmarks. 
Then  the  strong  words  and  severe  punishment  an- 
nounced regarding  idolatry  are  most  fitting,  just  as 
the  people  are  about  to  come  into  contact  with 
the  Canaanites  who  are  wholly  given  to  idolatry. 
Moreover,  these  laws  regarding  idolatry  are  but  an 
expansion  and  application  of  the  first  and  second 
commands  of  the  ten  words,  made  at  a  most  fitting 
time.  So  in  like  manner,  the  regulations  regarding 
the  cities  of  refuge  have  their  natural  explanation 
from  the  time  of  the  Conquest  rather  than  from 
the  days  of  Josiah.  Then,  too,  the  laws  regarding 
rulers  and  officers  found  in  Deuteronomy,  espe- 
cially the  regulations  concerning  the  choice  of  a 
king,  are  in  their  natural  place  on  the  eve  of  the 
establishment  of  the  national  life  of  the  people  in 
their  own  land.  So  all  through  the  book  we  could 
go,  making  references  which  go  to  show  that  the 
legislation  it  contains  fits  the  period  of  Moses  and 
the  Conquest  far  best ;  and  it  would  be  made  plain 
that  to  place  it  at  the  era  of  Josiah  would  render 
much  of  it  ob::olete  or  meaningless.      Conservative 


222  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

criticism  has  a  strong  case  at  this  point,  and  should 
follow  it  out. 

In  the  third  place,  the  account  which  the  critics 
give  of  the  absence  of  ritual  regulations  in  Deuter- 
onomy is  by  no  means  adequate,  and  can  only  be 
regarded  as  the  product  of  a  preconceived  theory. 
We  are  told  by  the  radical  critics  that  the  elabo- 
rate ritual  of  the  Priestly  code  did  not  exist,  since  in 
the  history  of  this  period  there  are  few  references 
to  it,  and  in  Deuteronomy  there  is  very  little  allu- 
sion to  the  elaborate  details  of  the  Levitical  system. 
Hence,  we  are  told  that  these  details  did  not  yet 
exist.  The  reader  will  at  once  perceive  that  this  is 
really  the  argument  a  silcntio  to  which  allusion  was 
made  in  a  previous  chapter.  It  either  proves  noth- 
ing, or  else  it  proves  too  much,  as  was  then  shown. 
Consequently,  it  does  not  follow  that  because  there 
is  little  allusion  to  elaborate  sacrifice  and  to  the 
great  annual  feasts,  therefore  these  things  were 
not  existent  and  obligatory.  Even  non-observance 
would  not  prove  their  non-existence,  and  so  we  see 
again  that  all  this  sort  of  reasoning  is  utterly  un- 
worthy the  name  of  sober  criticism.  But  further, 
the  code  which  was  in  force  in  connection  with  the 
elaborate  Temple  service  could  only  be  the  Dcu- 
teronomic,  for,  according  to  the  radical  critics,  the 
Priestly  code  did  not  exist  till  about  the  time  of  the 
Exile.  And  yet  the  critics  tell  us  that  this  very 
code,  being  barren  of  frequent  allusions  to  ritual 
details,  proves  that  there  was  no  elaborate  ritual  in 


DEUTERONOMY.  223 

existence.  Surely  the  far  more  natural  view  is  to 
hold  that  the  complete  Mosaic  system  was  in  exist- 
ence, and  observed  more  or  less  carefully  from  the 
first,  and  that  as  matters  moved  on  in  the  even 
tenor  of  their  way,  there  was  no  reason  to  be  con- 
stantly emphasizing  the  details  of  the  system,  or 
giving  annual  accounts  of  its  observance.  The  ab- 
surdity of  the  critical  view  is  made  all  the  more 
evident  when  we  add  to  what  has  just  been  said, 
the  fact  that  in  originating  the  Priestly  code  at,  or 
after,  the  Exile,  with  Ezekiel  as  the  transition  be- 
tween the  Deuteronomic  and  Priestly  codes,  the 
critics  are  really  preparing  an  elaborate  code  for  a 
Temple  all  in  ruins,  for  the  first  temple  was  de- 
stroyed at  the  beginning  of  the  great  captivity. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  contention  of  the  critics 
that  in  Deuteronomy  we  first  find  insistence  on  wor- 
ship at  one  central  sanctuary  is  not  well  founded. 
The  spirit  of  the  Covenant  code  as  represented  by 
the  ten  words  is  monotheistic,  and  looks  to  a  cen- 
tral sanctuary.  During  the  wilderness  experience, 
and  in  the  unsettled  state  of  the  nation  throughout 
the  period  of  the  Judges,  it  may  have  been  that 
this  central  place  was  a  moveable  one,  but  where 
the  Ark  and  Tabernacle  were,  there  was  the  place 
whither  the  people  were  to  repair.  Then,  too,  we 
challenge  the  critics  to  prove  that  previous  to  the 
appearance  of  the  Deuteronomic  code  in  the  days 
of  Josiah,  as  they  say,  idolatry  was  tolerated  by 
any    code,    or   that    worship  at    a    multiplicity  of 


224  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

shrines  was  enjoined.  Neither  the  contents  of  the 
Covenant  code  nor  the  history  of  the  period  in  the 
Jehovistic  hterature  affords  any  shadow  of  proof  for 
the  critical  opinion  on  this  point. 

In  the  fifth  place,  several  other  points,  did  space 
permit,  could  be  dwelt  upon  to  show  how  unten- 
able the  radical  view  is  on  the  topic  now  under 
notice.  The  wonderful  unity  of  Deuteronomy,  as 
is  well  shown  even  by  Dillmann  and  Delitzsch, 
tells  against  the  critics.  The  difficulty  of  smug- 
gling m  the  book  and  its  code  at  the  time  of  Josiah 
with  no  protest  from  the  people  is  a  serious  mat- 
ter for  the  critics  to  account  for.  The  serious  dif- 
ficulty of  providing  an  author  who  is  as  likely  as 
Moses,  is  one  which  we  may  press  against  the 
critics  ;  and  if  he  be  not  the  author  of  the  legisla- 
tion why  has  it  his  name  }  In  a  word,  the  critics 
are  bound  to  prove  the  non-Mosaic  genesis  of 
Deuteronomy  before  they  can  establish  their  case. 
This  they  have  not  yet  succeeded  in  doing. 

The  critics  are  also  bound  to  explain  the  differ- 
ence between  the  attitude  of  Deuteronomy  toward 
Egypt  and  Edom,  and  the  attitude  of  Hosea  the 
prophet,  who  lived  just  about  the  time  the  critics 
tell  us  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  was  taking 
definite  shape  as  a.  praxis  among  the  people, 
toward  these  nations.  The  prophet  and  the 
Deuteronomist  are  in  conflict,  according  to  the 
critical  theory,  while  according  to  the  conservative 


DEUTERONOMY.  225 

view  there  is  no  such   conflict.       Will    the    critics 
kindly  explain  ? 

In  the  last  place,  we  believe  that  the  existence 
of  the  main  contents  of  Deuteronomy  can  be  traced 
back  from  the  days  of  Josiah  to  the  period  of  the 
Conquest.  This  important  task  is  effected  by  com- 
paring the  contents  of  Deuteronomy  with  Kings 
and  Chronicles  at  certain  important  junctures. 
The  result  of  that  comparison  will  appear  to  be 
that  the  allusions  in  the  historical  books  are  possi- 
ble only  under  the  assumption  that  the  contents  of 
Deuteronomy  already  existed  when  the  history  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles  was  drawn  up.  Compare 
2  Kings  14:  5,  6  with  Deut.  24:  16;  also  2  Kings 
II  :  12  with  Deut.  31  :  26,  and  also  2  Chron.  20  : 
10  with  Deut.  2:4-19,  for  examples  of  what  we 
mean.  We  are  sure  that  this  is  a  rich  mine  which 
conservative  criticism  will  do  well  to  work  up  fully. 
The  outcome  of  this  work  will  assuredly  be  to  show 
that  if  any  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  the  historical 
books,  Deuteronomy  existed  long  before  the  time 
the  critics  assign  for  its  origin.  But  enough,  we 
trust,  has  been  said  to  show  that  the  critical  view 
of  the  book  and  code  of  Deuteronomy  cannot  be 
successfully  maintained.  The  next  chapter  will 
deal  with  the  graded  priestJiood. 


IS 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  GRADED  PRIESTHOOD. 

The  last  chapter  discussed  the  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy in  its  relations  to  the  radical  theory.  It 
was  found  that  the  place  and  scope  of  this  book, 
with  its  ritual  and  legislation,  is  incapable  of  proper 
explanation  on  the  basis  of  the  radical  critical 
theory.  The  views  of  conservative  criticism  re- 
garding Deuteronomy  were  also  shown  to  be  much 
more  natural  and  complete  ;  and,  consequently, 
radical  criticism  has  not  yet  made  out  a  case 
against  these  views. 

This  chapter  takes  up  a  somewhat  different 
topic,  of  which  the  radical  critics  make  a  good 
deal.  That  topic  is  what  may  be  called  tJie  graded 
priesthood.  The  question  raised  relates  to  the 
time  and  manner  in  which  these  grades  or  orders 
in  the  priesthood  of  the  religion  of  Israel  arose. 
Dominated  by  the  principle  of  natural  evolution, 
radical  criticism  holds  that  at  first  there  were  no 
such  grades  or  orders  in  the  priesthood  as  are 
denoted  by  the  terms  High  Priest,  Priests,  and 
Levites,  but  that  this  gradation  was  a  development 
of  later  times,  and  only  to  be  found  complete  and 
definite  in  the  Priests'  code  about  the  time  of  the 
[226] 


THE   GRADED  PRIESTHOOD.  227 

Exile.  We  now  proceed  to  examine  this  conten- 
tion, and  to  discover  what  truth,  if  any,  there  is  in 
it.  Now,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  graded  priest- 
hood actually  existed  from  the  beginning  of  the 
national  and  religious  life  of  Israel  ;  if  it  can  be 
made  plain  that  from  the  time  of  the  conquest. 
High  Priests,  Priests,  and  Levites,  all  ministered  in 
their  appointed  places,  then  radical  criticism  has 
its  claim  seriously  weakened.  In  this  chapter  an 
attempt  will  be  made  to  show  how  this  may  be 
done.  Of  course,  in  the  space  at  our  disposal, 
only  a  few  hints  can  be  given  as  to  the  lines  which 
conservative  criticism  is  to  follow  in  its  refutation 
of  radical  criticism  at  this  point. 

Our  first  position  is  that  we  find  the  threefold 
distinction  in  the  priesthood  set  forth  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy.  Here  we  have  Priests  and  Levites 
often  mentioned,  and,  of  course,  the  existence  of  the 
High  Priest  is  uniformly  assumed  by  the  author  of 
this  book.  We  have  space  only  to  allude  to  a  few 
passages.  In  the  first  verse  of  the  eighteenth  chapter 
we  read,  ' '  The  priests,  the  Levites,  and  all  the  tribe 
of  Levi. "  The  radical  critics,  of  course,  contend 
that  this  passage  does  not  imply  a  graded  priest- 
hood, and  a  great  deal  has  been  written  by  them 
upon  the  proper  construction  of  the  grammar  of 
this  passage.  We  are  inclined  to  think  that  what 
follows  in  the  same  chapter  settles  the  debate  in 
favor  of  those  who  hold  that  we  have  here  at  least 
a  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites.      For  the 


228  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

third  verse  tells  what  the  priest's  due  is  to  be,  and 
verses  6-8  tell  us  how  the  Levites  are  to  be  pro- 
vided for.  That  the  High  Priest  existed  at  this 
time  may  be  assumed,  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
and  from  the  history  which  is  to  be  considered 
under  another  head. 

In  the  5th  verse  of  the  2ist  chapter  we  have  the 
expression:  "The  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi."  In 
chapter  26,  verses  3,  4,  we  find  the  phrase  :  "The 
priest  that  is  in  those  days."  Then  in  verses  12, 
13,  of  the  same  chapter,  we  have  the  Levite  alone 
mentioned.  Such  passages  clearly  mark  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  priests  and  the  Levites,  though  all 
were  of  the  tribe  of  Levi. 

In  chapter  27,  verse  9,  we  have  "  Moses  and  the 
priests,  the  Levites  "  spoken  of.  Here  the  Levites 
are  commanded  to  speak  to  the  people  by  Moses. 
Again  in  the  9th  verse  of  the  31st  chapter  we  read 
that  "  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto 
the  priests  the  sons  of  Levi,  which  bear  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord. " 

From  these  passages,  the  natural  inference  is 
that  at  the  time  of  the  Deuteronomist,  even  if  we 
take  the  critical  view  that  this  was  about  the  time 
of  Josiah,  we  find  that  the  graded  priesthood  had 
assumed  definite  form.  We  are  well  aware  of  the 
various  evasions  of  the  critics  at  this  difficult  point, 
yet  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  these  evasions 
only  make  the  problem  more  difficult,  and  so  afford 
no  relief,  and  consequently  we  are  justified  in  still 
maintaining  the  conservative  views. 


THE   GRADED  PRIESTHOOD.  229 

In  the  second  place,  special  provision  was  made 
from  the  beginning  for  the  support  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  and  priests  and  Levites  were  each  to  have 
their  particular  means  of  sustenance.  This  tribe 
was  given  no  definite  inheritance  in  the  land,  but 
certain  cities  in  it  were  set  apart  for  their  occu- 
pancy. And  from  the  sacrifices  certain  portions 
were  to  be  given  to  the  priests  and  Levites,  and 
the  tithes  in  part  were  for  the  same  purpose.  An- 
other thing  is  important  here.  As  one  reads  the 
regulations  about  the  priests  and  Levites  and  con- 
cerning their  support  in  Deuteronomy,  the  implica- 
tion often  seems  to  be  made  that  another  complete 
system  of  rules  such  as  is  found  in  Numbers  and 
Leviticus,  already  existed.  It  is  only  on  this  sup- 
position that  some  passages  seem  to  be  intelligible. 
This,  if  the  case,  would  presuppose  the  existence 
of  the  Priest's  code  prior  to  that  of  Deuteronomy  ; 
and  the  force  of  this  would  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  mature  Mosaism,  including  the  graded  priest- 
hood, existed  among  the  people  from  the  conquest. 
This  assumption,  we  are  sure,  explains  the  limited 
references  in  Deuteronomy  to  details  of  priesthood 
and  ritual  much  more  naturally  than  the  hypothesis 
of  non-existence,  when  there  is  little  or  no  allusion 
to  this  matter  in  the  writings  in  question. 

In  the  third  place,  in  the  historical  books,  we 
find  frequent  references  to  certain  well  defined  dis- 
tinctions in  the  Levitical  orders.  In  Joshua  and 
Judges,  as  well  as  in  the  later  historical  books  giv- 
ing us  an  account  of  the  condition  of  things  in  the 


230  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

days  of  the  early  kings,  we  find  these  references. 
The  existence  of  the  High  Priest  from  the  first  is 
undoubted.  Aaron  stands  first  in  order,  and  the 
account  of  his  installation  must  be  regarded  as  his- 
torical, and  not  a  fiction  of  Ezra's  time  when  the 
Priests'  code  is  supposed  to  have  arisen.  He,  ac- 
cording to  Deut.  lo  :  6,  was  succeeded  by  Eleazar, 
his  son,  in  the  priest's  office.  Then,  in  Joshua 
14:1,  we  find  this  same  Eleazar  side  by  side  with 
Joshua  distributing  the  land  among  the  tribes  after 
the  conquest.  In  the  last  verse  of  the  last  chapter 
of  Joshua,  we  find  that  Eleazar  was  succeeded  by 
his  son  Phinehas.  Then  the  links  are  wanting,  but 
we  find  Eli  later  on,  and  Abiathar  and  Zadok  and 
others  mentioned,  which  would  indicate  the  exist- 
ence of  the  line  of  succession  more  or  less  defi- 
nitely. 

In  like  manner  if  we  follow  out  the  historical 
books,  we  shall  find  that  the  priests  and  the 
Levites  are  often  mentioned.  In  Joshua,  in  cross- 
ing the  Jordan,  the  priests  bore  the  ark,  and  in  the 
capture  of  Jericho  the  priests  marched  around  the 
city.  In  Joshua  21  :  1-8,  we  have  the  habitations 
of  the  Levites  described.  The  first  verse  reads 
thus:  "Then  came  near  the  heads  of  the  fathers 
of  the  Levites  unto  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  unto 
Joshua  the  son  of  Nun."  Then  follows  the  ac- 
count of  the  homes  of  the  sons  of  Aaron  in  order 
as  Levites.  Indeed  this  whole  chapter  should  be 
read  in  this  connection.      In  short,  the  historicity 


THE    GRADED   PRIESTHOOD.  231 

of  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges  must  be  im- 
pugned, or  else  we  are  bound  to  admit  that  the 
graded  priesthood  was  a  fact  at  the  time  of  the 
Conquest.  Hence  the  frantic  effort  of  the  radical 
critics  to  get  rid  of  the  verdict  of  this  history 
against  their  theories  is  readily  understood  in 
view  of  this  consideration.  To  follow  out  this  line 
fully  is  a  very  important  task  for  conservative 
criticism  to  perform. 

In  the  fourth  place,  if  the  Tabernacle  existed,  as 
we  shall  show  in  a  subsequent  chapter  it  did,  and 
if  the  elaborate  sacrificial  system  was  in  vogue,  as 
we  have  shown,  and  shall  yet  show  more  fully  that 
it  was,  then  this  carries  with  it  the  existence  of  the 
graded  priesthood.  And  this  for  the  simple  reason 
that  for  the  administration  of  this  completed  system, 
the  services  of  the  High  Priest,  the  Priests,  and  the 
Levites  were  all  needed.  To  have  an  elaborate 
ritual  without  the  officers  to  administer  it,  is  un- 
natural and  absurd.  From  the  history  of  the  books 
of  Joshua  and  Judges,  we  could  again  make  good 
this  position,  and  show  that  the  religious  system 
then  in  vogue  needed,  as  the  history  also  states 
that  it  had,  a  graded  priesthood.  As  this  point 
comes  up  in  another  chapter,  and  for  a  different 
purpose,  we  need  add  nothing  more  at  this  stage. 

In  the  fifth  place,  the  contention  of  the  radical 
critics  that  any  of  the  Levites  at  first  could  officiate 
as  priests,  and  that  it  was  only  by  degrees  that  the 
idea  of  three  grades  or  orders  arose,  is  entirely  un- 


232  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

founded.  To  say,  as  some  of  the  Wellhausen 
School  do,  that  there  was  no  High  Priest  till  later 
times,  is  to  go  in  the  face  of  the  history  of  the  books 
themselves.  To  satisfy  us  that  any  priest  could 
step  in  and  at  his  own  pleasure  act  as  priest,  cer- 
tainly needs  much  more  proof  than  has  yet  been 
given  for  it.  And,  further,  what  has  been  already 
said  in  reference  to  the  separation  of  these  orders 
from  the  first,  and  the  separate  provision  for  their 
support,  all  tells  against  the  critics'  contention,  so 
that  this,  too,  may  be  set  aside.  The  case  of  the 
Danite,  who  took  a  Levite  and  made  him  his  priest, 
proves  nothing  to  the  point  in  favor  of  the  critical 
viev/,  for  this  strange  proceeding  was  irregular,  and 
arose  in  a  period  when  the  nation  was  in  a  dis- 
turbed condition.  If  it  means  anything,  it  means 
that  certain  distinctions  between  the  Levites  al- 
ready existed. 

In  the  last  place,  we  emphasize  the  familiar  point 
that  the  radical  view  regarding  a  graded  priesthood 
and  the  way  in  which  it  developed  in  Israel,  is 
the  product  of  the  evolutionary  principle  which  is 
applied  to  this  particular  topic.  According  to  this 
principle,  the  simple  is  first,  and  the  complex  last, 
in  the  order  of  development.  Here  there  was  a 
simple  condition  without  gradation  at  all  at  first, 
but  by  degrees  the  differentiation  took  place  and 
the  complex  graded  priesthood  was  produced.  In 
previous  chapters,  the  inadequacy  of  this  principle 
to  explain  the  main  factors  in  the  religion  of  Israel 


THE   GRADED  PRIESTHOOD.  233 

was  pointed  out.  We  simply  fall  back  on  these 
discussions  to  make  effective  our  criticism  at  this 
point. 

Again  and  again  we  have  seen  that  the  simple 
historical  view  of  the  history  and  religion  of  Israel 
is  the  natural  one.  Theories,  not  facts,  rule  in  the 
methods  of  the  radical  critics.  There  is  a  solemn 
propriety  in  the  fact  that  some  of  the  radical  critics 
have  in  recent  years  been  writing  articles  and  mak- 
ing eloquent  addresses  in  which  they  exalt  the  use  of 
the  imagination  in  Higher  Criticism.  Judging  from 
what  we  have  seen  in  our  critique  even  thus  far, 
the  radical  critics  certainly  do  exercise  the  imagina- 
tion more  than  the  understanding,  and  the  fancy  is 
far  more  frequently  brought  into  play  than  the 
judgment. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  TABERNACLE. 

We  now  pass  from  the  priesthood  to  the  Taber- 
nacle and  the  Ark.  In  doing  so  we  come  to  a  very 
interesting  topic  in  itself  considered,  and  to  one 
concerning  which  radical  criticism  has  a  good  deal 
to  say.  Moreover,  this  criticism  finds  the  Taber- 
nacle and  its  services  a  rather  hard  problem  to 
solve.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  supplies  a  definite 
concrete  object  and  a  fully  developed  ritual  which 
must  puzzle  even  the  imagination  of  the  critics. 

If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Tabernacle  and  its 
service  actually  existed  from  the  early  stages  of  the 
religious  history  of  Israel,  radical  criticism  is  virtu- 
ally refuted  at  an  exceedingly  important  point,  for 
it  is  with  the  Tabernacle  that  the  most  complex 
sacrificial  system  and  ritual  service  is  associated. 

In  taking  up  this  theme,  we  shall  first  note  how 
futile  some  of  the  attempts  made  by  the  critics  to 
explain  the  Tabernacle  and  its  service,  really  are, 
and  then  we  shall  show  positively  that  the  facts 
associated  with  the  Tabernacle  tell  against  the  radi- 
cal theory  most  seriously. 

First,  let  us  note  some  things  which  the  critics 
have  to  say.  They  are  bound  to  face  the  problem, 
[231] 


THE    TABERNACLE.  235 

and  the  feats  of  critical  gymnastics  which  they  per- 
form in  deahng  with  it  are  somewhat  entertaining. 
We  note  one  or  two  with  the  utmost  brevity. 

First  :  the  view  that  there  may  have  been  an 
Ark,  but  that  there  was  no  Tabernacle  in  early 
times  is  not  well  founded.  This  critical  view 
maintains  that  there  was  only  a  tent  called  ' '  the 
tent  of  meeting"  at  first,  and  it  was  not  till  later 
times,  in  the  Priest's  code,  that  the  Tabernacle 
appeared.  The  account  in  Exodus  is  perfectly 
natural,  if  we  take  into  account  the  incident  of 
the  golden  calf.  Because  of  this  defection,  Moses 
moved  his  tent  to  a  distance,  and  this  was  "the 
tent  of  meeting."  In  due  time  the  Tabernacle 
proper  was  prepared  according  to  the  divine  model 
shown  to  Moses  in  the  Mount.  Then  this  Taber- 
nacle can  be  traced  historically  during  the  wilder- 
ness era,  and  then  into  Canaan,  and  for  a  long 
period  there.  Consequently,  the  Tabernacle  is  not 
an  expansion  of  "  the  tent  of  meeting,"  but  a  com- 
plete structure  from  the  beginning,  and  it  had  a 
continuous  history  till  it  was  merged  into  the 
Temple. 

Secondly:  the  claim  of  radical  criticism  in  certain 
quarters  that  the  Tabernacle  was  a  reproduction  of 
the  Temple  in  miniature,  is  utterly  groundless. 
This  supposition  puts  the  Temple  before  the  Taber- 
nacle. This  view  is  so  absurd  that  it  is  scarcely 
worth  while  to  take  time  to  refute  it.  It  is  utterly 
opposed  to  the  history  alike  of  the  Tabernacle  and 


236  RADICAL   CRITICISM. 

the  Temple;  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  evolutionary 
principle  which  radical  criticism  applies  to  the 
development  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  for  it  puts  the 
more  elaborate  Temple  service  before  that  of  the 
Tabernacle;  and  finally  it  places  the  Tabernacle  at 
the  time  of  the  Exile,  a  period  when  the  Ark  dis- 
appears entirely  from  the  history,  and  the  history 
itself  tells  us  of  the  rcbuildijig  of  the  Temple  in- 
stead of  the  construction  of  the  Tabernacle. 

Thirdly  :  the  contention  of  the  radical  critics  that 
the  history  of  the  Tabernacle  has  been  projected 
backward  in  time  is  without  any  good  reasons  in  its 
support.  The  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Tabernacle  is 
far  harder  to  disprove  than  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  books  which  tell  us  about  it.  Even  though 
it  be  made  out  that  another  hand,  or  series  of 
hands  has  written  the  account  of  the  Tabernacle, 
it  would  not  follow  that  the  Tabernacle  itself  and 
the  legislation  connected  with  it  were  not  Mosaic. 
Then  we  may  not  forget  that  the  reality  of  the  his- 
tory is  so  definite  that  it  can  only  be  the  stress  of  a 
preconceived  theory  that  drives  radical  criticism  to 
manipulate  the  history  as  it  does. 

In  the  second  place,  we  now  proceed  to  deal 
with  some  things  of  a  positive  nature  connected 
with  the  Tabernacle  which  together  make  up  a 
severe  verdict  against  radical  criticism.  Our  space 
permits  us  to  mention  only  a  few  of  these  briefly. 

First  :  it  is  worth  while  to  note  the  fact  that  the 
description  of  the  make-up  of  the  Tabernacle,  and 


THE   TABERNACLE.  237 

the  directions  concerning  its  transportation  were 
best  suited  for  the  wilderness  career  of  the  people. 
So  far  as  the  history  of  it  is  concerned,  this  is  just 
what  we  find.  It  was  made  so  that  it  could  be 
easily  taken  down  and  set  up;  it  was  actually 
carried  from  place  to  place  in  the  wilderness,  and 
afterwards  brought  through  Jordan  to  Canaan  in 
the  days  of  the  judges.  Then  later  on  the  Ark 
was  at  Shiloh  and  other  places  in  Canaan  for  a 
time,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Tab- 
ernacle and  its  service  was  associated  with  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Ark  in  those  places.  To  argue,  as  the 
critics  do,  that  the  Tabernacle  and  its  service  was 
a  later  product,  coming  into  existence,  long  after 
the  people  were  settled  in  Canaan  and  perhaps 
after  the  Temple  of  Solomon  was  built,  is  certainly 
rowing  against  the  stream.  No  wonder,  therefore, 
that  these  critics  are  inclined  to  regard  the  whole 
experience  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness  as 
mythical. 

Secondly  :  we  remark  that  to  give  the  idea  of  the 
Tabernacle  a  late  origin  is  to  invert  the  whole  or- 
der of  the  development  of  the  religious  life  of 
Israel  and  to  reduce  it  to  utter  confusion.  Of 
course,  it  is  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the  con- 
servative view  of  this  development,  which  main- 
tains that  the  complete  Mosaic  system  of  ritual  and 
legislation  was  the  ideal  before  the  people  from  the 
first.  This  view  is  also  out  of  harmony  with  the 
main    principles  of  the  radical    theory   for   it    puts 


238  RADICAL   CRITICISM. 

the  Tabernacle  service  subsequent  to  the  Temple, 
while  the  latter  was  much  more  elaborate  than  the 
former  ;  and  according  to  the  natural  evolutionary 
principle  the  more  elaborate  should  come  last  in 
the  order  of  time.  Consequently,  the  radical  the- 
ory is  not  only  lacking  in  self-consistency,  but  is 
out  of  harmony  with  any  reasonable  view  of  the 
religious  development  of  Israel. 

Thirdly  :  the  Tabernacle  would  really  be  of  no 
use  after  the  Exile,  at  which  time  radical  criti- 
cism would  have  us  believe  that  its  idea  came 
into  existence.  This  criticism  entirely  overlooks 
the  real  historical  conditions  of  the  Exilic  period. 
Previous  to  the  Exile  the  Temple  ritual,  which  was 
simply  an  expansion  of  the  Tabernacle  service,  had 
been  in  vogue  for  centuries  ;  the  second  Temple 
was  built  in  connection  with  the  Restoration,  and 
the  natural  inference  is  that  matters  would  soon 
settle  down  to  the  status  of  the  period  before  the 
Exile.  This  would  bring  in  the  Temple  ritual  in 
its  substantial  form.  Now  in  these  circumstances, 
we  simply  ask.  What  was  the  use  of  the  Tabernacle  .-* 
In  the  settled  state  in  Canaan  there  was  no  need 
for  it  ;  nor  could  it  have  a  place  in  the  religious  life 
and  observance  of  the  people  at  that  time.  It  was 
out  of  season  ;  and  so  radical  criticism  has  on  its 
hands  a  complete  Tabernacle  which  was  useless 
and  all  out  of  date.  Then,  too,  the  fact  already 
alluded  to  in  this  chapter  in  reference  to  the  absence 
of  any  notice  of  the  Ark  after  the  Exile,  has  force 


THE    TABERNACLE.  239 

here  again.  The  main  purpose  of  the  Tabernacle 
was  to  contain  the  Ark  of  the  testimony.  If  this 
Ark,  as  is  generally  admitted  now,  was  not  in  exist- 
ence at  all  at  that  time,  what  was  the  use  of  the 
Tabernacle  .-'  Again,  it  was  useless,  and  here  again  ; 
radical  criticism,  as  so  often,  gives  us  the  shell 
without  the  kernel.  These  points  must  be  met  by 
radical  criticism,  and  we  demand  a  proper  explana- 
tion before  we  can  allow  the  radical  theory  to  be 
propounded  without  challenge. 

Fourthly  :  the  history,  at  certain  great  junctures 
of  the  nation,  makes  it  clear  that  the  Tabernacle 
existed  in  early  times.  The  account  of  the  cross- 
ing of  Jordan  in  the  days  of  Joshua  is  very  clear 
and  definite.  The  account  of  the  removal  of  the 
Ark  to  Jerusalem  by  David  is  of  as  decided  a 
historical  nature  as  anything  could  possibly  be. 
And  even  if  no  distinct  mention  is  made  that  the 
Tabernacle  then  existed,  the  view  that  time  had 
virtually  brought  it  into  decay,  may  be  as  good  a 
reason  for  its  seeming  absence  in  David's  day  as 
the  supposition  that  it  did  not  exist  at  all  till  many 
years  after.  So  in  Solomon's  day  the  history  is 
equally  clear.  We  simply  demand  of  the  critics  a 
satisfactory  explanation  of  these  historical  facts. 
We  shall  not  be  content  with  any  fictitious  account 
of  the  history,  for  if  the  history  be  fiction,  what  is 
to  become  of  the  doctrines  .''  Are  they  fiction  also } 
Then,  above  all,  we  claim  that  it  would  simply  be 
impossible   for    any  scribe,    living  in  the   time    of 


240  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Josiah  and  Ezra,  to  write  up  the  history  in  a  purely 
fictitious  way.  The  details  of  names,  places,  and 
dates  are  far  too  great  for  any  such  mode  of  pro- 
duction. It  really  requires  more  faith  to  believe 
that  such  a  thing  is  possible  in  a  purely  natural 
way  than  to  believe  in  the  supernatural  genesis  of 
the  complete  Mosaic  system. 

Fifthly  :  the  ritual  of  mature  Mosaism  was  con- 
nected v/ith  the  Tabernacle,  and  so  if  we  find  the 
Tabernacle  extant  at  as  early  a  date  as  the  Con- 
quest, then  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the 
complete  Levitical  code  was  then  in  existence. 
The  ritual  of  the  day  of  atonement,  the  require- 
ments of  all  the  annual  feasts,  the  details  of  cleans- 
ing from  various  forms  of  uncleanness,  and  the 
complex  legal  code  were  all  connected  with  the 
Tabernacle  and  the  Ark  which  it  contained.  This 
gave  a  single  sanctuary  as  the  law  of  the  religious 
system  from  the  beginning.  And  when  we  find,  as 
we  do,  that  the  Tabernacle  is  alluded  to  in  the 
literature  of  all  the  so-called  codes,  there  is  surely 
good  reason  for  concluding  that  all  these  codes 
existed  from  the  first,  and  are  to  be  regarded  as  a 
complex  unit,  and  not  a  series  of  successive  codes 
increasing  in  complexity  and  coming  into  existence 
gradually.  The  force  of  this  argument  will  be 
made  much  greater  after  we  discuss  in  the  next 
chapter  the  great  feasts  of  the  Mosaic  system. 
We  now  content  ourselves  with  pointing  out  the 
fact  that  the  Tabernacle  existed  from  early  times 


THE    TABERNACLE.  241 

in  Israel,  and  with  indicating  the  view  that  the 
mature  ritual  and  sacrificial  system  of  the  people 
were  associated  with  the  Tabernacle,  and  hence 
must  have  really  existed  from  the  first. 

In  closing  this  chapter,  we  remark  that  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  argument  from  the  Tabernacle  and 
its  ritual,  tells  with  terrible  effect  against  radical 
criticism.  The  effort  of  that  criticism  to  account 
for  the  Tabernacle  and  all  that  pertained  to  it 
in  harmony  with  its  theory,  must  be  pronounced 
a  signal  failure,  while  conservative  criticism  has 
little  difficulty  in  keeping  possession  of  the  field 
with  a  reasonable  explanation  of  all  the  facts  in 
the  case.  The  apostle  in  Hebrews  tells  us  that 
"there  was  a  Tabernacle  made,"  and  there  it 
stands  as  a  perpetual  challenge  to  radical  criticism. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  GREAT  FEASTS. 

From  the  consideration  of  the  Tabernacle  and 
the  priesthood,  we  pass  in  this  chapter  to  a  brief 
study  of  the  great  feasts  of  the  Mosaic  system,  and 
our  endeavor  will  be  to  examine,  in  as  careful  a 
manner  as  our  limits  allow,  the  views  and  theories 
of  advanced  critics  upon  this  particular  subject. 

It  need  scarcely  be  remarked  in  entering  upon 
this  topic,  that  we  have  before  us  a  large  and  diffi- 
cult subject.  For  those  who  wish  to  pursue  study 
at  length  on  this  topic  we  know  of  no  better  guide 
than  the  able  and  learned  discussion  of  it  in  "The 
Hebrew  Feasts,"  by  Dr.  W.  Henry  Green,  of 
Princton,  N.  J.,  than  whom  there  is  no  more  com- 
petent scholar  at  the  present  day  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment field. 

The  advanced  critics  claim  that  from  the  way 
the  Jewish  feasts  are  spoken  of  in  the  different  so- 
called  codes,  there  are  many  things  to  support  their 
theories  and  conclusions.  They  point  out  the  fact 
that  certain  of  these  feasts  are  barely  mentioned  in 
the  Deuteronomic  code,  and  that  the  ritual  of  the 
great  day  of  atonement  is  described  only  in  what  is 
called  by  the  critics  the  Priests'  code.  From  this 
[242] 


THE   GREAT  FEASTS.  243 

it  is  argued  that  the  elaborate  system  of  feasts  in 
the  religion  of  Israel  did  not  exist  from  the  first, 
but  came  gradually  into  existence  among  the  peo- 
ple. These  feasts  as  they  finally  appeared  were 
not  Mosiac  in  their  origin  and  contents,  but  were 
the  product  of  later  religious  development  among 
the  people,  which  became  complete  only  about  the 
time  of  the  Exile. 

In  support  of  this  radical  view  the  critics  are  not 
content  to  reason  merely  from  the  allusions  to 
these  feasts  in  the  Scriptures.  The  critics  take  us 
on  interesting  excursions  among  pagan  customs, 
and  describe  to  us  in  a  very  eloquent  way  how 
these  Jewish  feasts  are  to  be  understood  as  natural 
developments  from  various  nature  festivals.  These 
feasts  thus  rest  largely  upon  a  natural  agricultural 
and  pastoral  basis,  and  may  all  be  traced  back,  so 
the  critics  assure  us,  to  the  customs  of  the  tribes 
who  dwelt  in  Canaan  before  them.  By  a  simple 
and  natural  process  these  festivals  were  transferred 
from  Baal  and  other  deities  to  Jehovah,  and  as 
worship  was  gradually  centralized  in  one  place, 
these  feasts  gradually  assumed  their  distinct  Jewish 
forms.  The  germs  of  this  result  are  found  in  Deu- 
teronomy, but  the  complete  development  only  ap- 
pears in  the  days  of  Ezra. 

In  making  criticism  of  the  radical  position  in 
regard  to  the  great  feasts,  we  shall  follow  two  lines, 
dwelling  chiefly  on  the  second  of  these.  We  shall 
first  examine  the  natural  explanation  of  the  feasts 


244  RADICAL  CRITICISM. 

given  by  the  critics  ;  and  secondly,  we  shall  en- 
deavor to  show  that  the  critical  contention  is  not 
supported  from  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures, 
even  if  we  allow  that  there  are  three  codes  in  the 
Old  Testament  literature. 

In  regard  to  the  first  line  of  inquiry  we  need  not 
say  very  much.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  crit- 
ical procedure  here  consists  simply  in  applying  the 
principle  of  natural  evolution  to  the  development  of 
the  feasts  of  Israel's  religion.  According  to  this 
principle,  simple  nature  festivals,  connected  with 
vintage  and  harvest,  gradually  grew  into  the  elab- 
orate ritual  of  the  great  Jewish  feasts.  Now  we 
allege  here  that  the  critics  adduce  no  sufficient 
proof  of  their  position  at  this  point.  They  simply 
assume  that  the  religion  of  Israel  was  a  simple,  nat- 
ural product  like  other  religious  systems,  and  then 
make  the  transition  from  the  customs  of  the 
Canaanites  to  the  festivals  of  the  Israelites  without 
any  adequate  historical  basis  on  which  to  stand, 
and  without  adducing  any  sufficient  facts  to  prove 
their  position.  If  what  we  have  said  in  a  former 
chapter  on  the  philosophy  of  religion  be  recalled,  it 
will  serve  as  a  complete  refutation  of  the  critical 
claims  at  this  important  point.  Even  if  we  admit 
that  the  Jewish  feasts  were  associated  with  certain 
processes  in  nature,  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
there  was  no  supernatural  element  in  them,  or  that 
they  were  not  unique  in  their  nature. 


THE   GREAT  FEASTS.  245 

But  we  proceed  to  the  second  point,  and  seek  to 
show  that  the  true  view  of  the  great  feasts  tells 
against  the  critical  theory  rather  than  in  favor  of  it. 
Our  readers  will  remember  that  the  annual  feasts 
of  the  Israelites  were  seven  in  number,  and  they 
were  divided  into  at  least  two  cycles.  They  were 
the  following  :  The  Passover,  followed  closely  by 
the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  the  Feast  of 
Weeks,  the  Feast  of  Trumpets  or  New  Moon,  the 
Day  of  Atonement,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and 
a  Solemn  Assembly  at  the  close  of  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles. 

We  cannot  speak  of  all  of  these  in  this  chap- 
ter, so  we  select  three  of  the  most  familiar  and  im- 
portant of  the  seven,  and  discuss  their  bearing  on 
the  views  of  advanced  criticism.  These  three  are 
the  Passover,  the  Feast  of  Weeks,  and  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles.  This  gives  us  really  the  Passover, 
Pentecost,  and  Tabernacles,  with  which  we  are 
made  familiar  both  in  Old  Testament  and  New. 

Just  a  word  may  be  said  in  explanation  of  these 
three  great  annual  feasts.  The  Passover  originated 
in  connection  with  the  departure  from  Egypt,  and 
was  observed  in  memory  of  the  deliverance  of  the 
people  from  the  house  of  bondage. 

The  Feast  of  Weeks,  or,  as  it  is  usually  termed  in 
the  New  Testament,  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  was 
fifty  days  after  the  Passover.  This  feast  was  at 
the  end  of    harvest,   and  consisted    mainly  in    an 


246  RADICAL  CRITICISM. 

offering  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  harvest,  in  various 
forms,  unto  the  Lord. 

The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  came  five  days  after 
the  Day  of  Atonement.  There  seem  to  have  been 
two  elements  in  this  feast.  First,  the  dwelling  of 
the  people  in  booths  in  memory  of  the  wilderness 
journey,  and,  secondly,  the  ingathering  of  the 
fruits.      It  was  thus  the  harvest-home  of  Israel. 

Now  it  is  contended  by  radical  critics  that  these 
various  feasts  were  late  products  of  the  religion  of 
Israel,  and  that  they  grew  gradually  out  of  old 
customs  connected  with  the  season  of  the  year,  and 
the  products  of  agriculture.  They  were  nature 
festivals  transformed  into  definite  religious  rites. 
Two  of  these  —  Pentecost  and  Tabernacles — were 
associated  with  harvest,  the  one  at  the  beginning 
and  the  other  at  the  close  of  the  ingathering.  If 
any  Jewish  feasts  are  capable  of  being  explained,  as 
the  radical  critics  contend  ;  and  if  any  can  be  shown 
not  to  have  come  into  existence  until  late  in  the 
history  of  the  Jews,  these  are  the  ones.  Hence,  if 
we  make  inquiry  concerning  these,  and  can  show 
that  the}^  existed  from  early  days,  a  good  case  is 
made  out  against  the  radical  critics.  Unless  history 
be  turned  upside  down,  this  can  be  easily  shown 
from  the  sacred  records  themselves. 

In  the  first  place,  the  argument  from  silence 
proves  nothing,  or  it  proves  too  much,  regarding 
the  feasts  just  as  we  have  already  seen  in  regard  to 
other  things  in  this  discussion.      If  in  the  Covenant 


THE   GREAT  FEASTS.  247 

and  Deuteronomic  codes  we  do  not  find  much  con- 
cerning some  of  these  feasts,  it  does  not  follow 
that  they  did  not  exist.  This  point  has  been  so 
elaborated  in  a  former  chapter,  concerning  another 
matter,  that  it  need  only  be  mentioned  here.  It 
may  be  well  to  add,  however,  that  if  silence,  or 
absence  of  mention  in  the  history  of  Israel  of  anj^ 
rite  or  ceremony,  proves  anything,  it  would  be 
hard  to  prove  that  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  ob- 
served till  some  time  after  the  days  of  Ezra. 
From  allusions  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  it  is 
clear  that  this  solemn  feast  was  observed.  Hence, 
the  assumption  of  the  critics  concerning  the  silence 
of  the  historical  narrative  proves  too  much,  and 
that  is  the  same  as  proving  nothing  in  this  case. 

In  the  second  place,  each  of  the  feasts,  accord- 
ing to  the  biblical  view,  has  a  definite  time  set  for 
its  origin  and  observance.  The  Passover  was  the 
fourteenth  day  of  Nisan,  Pentecost  was  fifty  days 
after,  and  Tabernacles  at  the  close  of  harvest.  In 
this  connection  it  is  well  to  remember  the  com- 
memorative nature  of  these  feasts,  which  gives  still 
clearer  definiteness  in  time  to  the  origin  of  these 
feasts  according  to  the  biblical  view.  According  to 
the  advanced  critical  theory,  all  is  vague  and  in- 
definite. The  critics  cannot  tell  us  definitely,  nor 
do  they  agree  in  their  views,  as  to  the  time  and 
circumstances  of  the  origin  of  these  feasts,  if  they 
are  the  product  of  natural  development.  At  this 
point,   therefore,   the  critical  theory  so  lacks  defi- 


248  RADICAL   CRTTTCISM. 

niteness  that  when  compared  with  the  bibhcal 
account,  it  fails  to  commend  itself  as  based  on  his- 
torical fact,  or  as  a  proper  explanation  of  the  facts. 
In  the  third  place,  the  purpose  of  the  feasts  is 
more  fully  and  naturally  explained  according  to  the 
bibical  view,  and  this  again  tells  strongly  against 
the  radical  theory.  The  main  purpose  of  the  Pass- 
over was  to  commemorate  the  wonderful  way  in 
which  the  Lord,  by  a  high  hand,  brought  the  peo- 
ple out  of  Egypt.  We  would  naturally  expect 
that  as  such  it  would  date  from  the  time  of  that 
deliverance.  The  radical  theory  which  makes  it 
later,  has  really  no  reason  in  it,  for  what  sense 
would  there  be  in  beginning  to  observe  this  great 
event  in  the  history  of  the  people  centuries  after  its 
occurrence  }  So  in  regard  to  the  commemorative 
element  in  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  re- 
lated to  the  wilderness  wandering.  There  is  no 
reason  in  the  view  of  radical  criticism  which  gives 
this  also  a  late  origin  centuries  after  the  era  of  that 
wandering.  We  would  expect  just  what  the  bib- 
lical view  presents,  and  that  is  its  observance  from 
the  first.  So  m  regard  to  the  harvest  element  in 
Pentecost  and  Tabernacles.  It  is  not  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  the  people  had  gone  on  gathering 
harvests  for  centuries  in  Canaan  before  these  ele- 
ments came  into  existence.  We  would  expect 
them  from  the  first.  And,  moreover,  we  find  har- 
vest elements  in  these  feasts  in  their  mature  form. 
If  these  feasts  grew  out  of  old  nature  festivals,  we 


THE    GREAT  FEASTS.  249 

would  expect  these  elements  to  have  been  largely 
eliminated.  Then,  too,  there  are  some  feasts,  es- 
pecially the  Passover  and  Day  of  Atonement,  in 
which  there  are  no  signs  of  nature  factors,  and  to 
which  there  is  nothing  similar  in  any  of  the  customs 
of  the  Canaanites  of  which  we  know  an3'thing. 

In  the  fourth  place,  it  would  be  easy  to  show, 
did  space  permit,  that  these  feasts  existed  by  di- 
vine appointment  from  the  Mosaic  era.  By  the 
history,  by  the  prophets,  by  the  Psalms,  by  the 
New  Testament  allusions,  this  could  be  made  per- 
fectly plain.  We  would,  instead  of  following  out 
these  several  lines  at  length,  refer  our  readers  to 
Dr.  Green's  "  Hebrew  Feasts  "  for  further  discussion 
of  this  subject,  and  for  refutation  of  the  radical 
critical  theory.  Our  conviction  is  that  a  careful 
study  of  these  feasts  will  show  that  the  radical 
theory  introduces  disorder  into  the  sequence  of 
the  feasts,  does  injustice  to  the  Mosaic  system,  and 
utterly  ignores  the  history  which  they  imply.  In 
a  word,  the  feasts  are  a  puzzle  on  the  radical 
critical  theory. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  PROPHETS. 

In  this  chapter  we  have  to  consider  a  topic  of 
great  importance  in  itself,  and  of  deep  significance 
in  relation  to  the  modern  critical  views  under  de- 
bate in  this  little  work.  What  is  the  precise 
place  and  function  of  the  prophetic  order  in  the 
religion  of  Israel,  and  what  is  the  relation  of  the 
prophets  to  the  law  and  ritual  of  the  Mosaic 
system,  are  questions  earnestly  discussed  by  bib- 
lical scholars  at  the  present  day.  We  would  natu- 
rally expect  that  such  a  subject  should  be  taken  hold' 
of  by  the  radical  critics  in  support  of  their  peculiar 
theory. 

We  have  already  seen  what  position  radical  criti- 
cism assumes  in  regard  to  the  prophets  and  their 
work.  In  general,  the  critics  contend  that  the 
prophets  came  before  the  fully  developed  Mosaic 
law  and  ritual  arose,  and  by  their  influence  much 
v/as  done  to  produce  ethical  monotheism,  and  to 
pave  the  way  for  worship  at  one  central  sanctuary. 
Moreover,  the  critics  of  the  radical  school  usually 
minimize  the  predictive  element  in  the  prophetic 
writings,  and  some  of  them  are  bold  enough  to 
deny  this  element  altogether.  The  critics,  also, 
[250] 


THE  PROPHETS.  251 

in  order  to  make  their  views  plausible,  seek  to 
bring  much  of  the  prophetic  literature  down  to 
later  times,  on  the  ground  that  in  the  early  stages 
of  the  religious  life  of  Israel  such  maturity  of  relig- 
ious ideas  as  is  found  in  the  prophetic  writings, 
could  not  have  existed  among  the   people. 

The  main  point  now  to  be  considered  is  the  re- 
lation of  the  Prophets  to  the  Law.  Which  was 
first  in  order  ?  Did  the  law  exist  first,  and  was 
the  great  work  of  the  prophets  to  keep  the  people 
in  obedience  to  this  law,  or  call  them  back  when 
they  went  astray  from  it  ?  Or,  did  the  prophets 
precede  the  law,  in  its  mature  form  at  least  }  And 
was  the  great  work  of  the  prophets  to  originate 
among  the  people  ethic  monotheism,  and  to  de- 
velop worship  at  one  sanctuary,  and  so  prepare 
the  way  for  mature  Mosaism  in  the  days  of  Josiah 
and  Ezra  ?  The  latter  is  the  view  of  radical  critics. 
The  former  is  the  view  we  propose  to  defend 
against  them.  We  can  only  suggest  a  few  lines  of 
remark  without  following  out  any  one  of  them  at 
length. 

In  the  first  place,  the  assumed  silence  of  the 
prophets,  even  if  true,  would  not  establish  the  con- 
clusions of  advanced  criticism.  This  is  the  argu- 
ment, a  silcntio  again  ;  and,  as  we  have  noted  its 
invalidity  at  other  points,  we  need  only  mention  it 
here.  Even  if  in  the  days  of  the  prophets  the  law 
was  not  observed,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  not 
then  binding,  and,  of  course,  existent,   for  declen- 


252  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

sion  and  apostasy  may  often  have  been  the  ex- 
planation of  its  non-observance  ;  and,  even  when 
uniformly  observed  by  the  people,  there  was  no 
need  that  the  prophets  should  formally  and  re- 
peatedly be  expounding  the  contents  of  a  law 
regularly  observed.  In  either  of  these  cases  we 
would  scarcely  expect  to  find  anything  else  or  any- 
thing more  than  we  do  in  the  prophetic  utterances. 
The  great  stress,  therefore,  v/hich  the  critics  lay  on 
the  silence  of  the  prophets,  even  if  true  to  the  ex- 
tent they  represent,  would  not  justify  them  in  plac- 
ing the  prophets  prior  to  the  law. 

In  the  second  place,  if  the  principle  of  natural 
development  be  relied  on,  as  it  is  so  largely  by  the 
radical  critics,  then  these  critics  must  face  the  dif- 
ficulty of  showing  how  the  law  in  its  mature  form 
developed  from  the  prophets  and  what  they  taught. 
Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  critics  emphasize 
that  some  of  the  early  prophets  seem  to  lift  up  their 
voices  aloud  against  elaborate  ritual  and  sacrifice, 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  mature  Mosaic 
ritual  did  not  exist  in  their  day.  Now  we  simply 
ask  the  critics  how,  on  their  naturalistic  principles 
and  in  accordance  with  the  view  they  give  of  the 
attitude  of  the  prophets  toward  ritual,  any  devel- 
opment in  the  direction  of  an  elaborate  ritual  sys- 
tem could  possibly  have  taken  place.  If  the 
prophets  are  opposed  to  elaborate  ritual,  how  could 
they  have  aided  in  producing  mature  Mosaism, 
which  has  a  complete  ritual  and  sacrificial  system 


THE  PROPHETS.  253 

contained  in  it.  The  view  that  the  law  was  first 
with  its  complete  ritual  is  much  more  natural.  It 
is  easier  to  explain  the  prophets  from  the  law,  than 
the  law  from  the  prophets.  This  position  is  of  vi- 
tal importance  in  the  discussion. 

In  the  third  place,  the  burden  of  the  prophetic 
message  oftentimes  was  to  call  the  people  back  to 
an  old  and  neglected  law.  To  quote  the  passages 
which  bear  upon  this  point  would  be  to  take  up  the 
space  of  a  whole  chapter.  Amos,  Joel,  Hosea  and 
Isaiah  abound  in  these  passages.  Jeremiah  also 
has  many  things  which  show  how  the  people  had 
declined  from  the  early  ideal,  and  how  he  earnestly 
called  the  people  back.  In  Hosea  alone  there  is 
more  than  enough  to  refute  the  contentions  of  the 
radical  critics  at  this  point.  The  figure  of  the  un- 
faithful spouse,  and  the  earnest  calls  to  this  spouse 
to  return  to  her  first  proper  affection,  illustrate  the 
function  of  the  prophets  in  the  age  prior  to  Josiah 
about  one  hundred  and  twenty  years,  and  before 
the  days  of  Ezra  fully  three  hundred  years.  From 
such  facts  as  these,  scattered  all  through  the  pre- 
exilian  prophets,  the  conclusion  is  evident  that  the 
mature  Mosaic  system  of  law  and  ritual  existed 
prior  to  the  prophets,  and  before  the  date  given  by 
radical  critics  for  the  origin  of  the  Deuteronomic 
and  Priestly  codes.  In  other  words,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  interpret  the  prophets  unless  we  assume 
the  existence  of  the  complete  legal  and  ritual  sys- 
tem.    The  prophets  did    not    profess   to   be   pro- 


254  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

pounding  some  new  way,  but  were  calling  the 
wayward  people  back  to  the  old  forgotten  paths  of 
their  fathers.  The  meaning  of  all  this  is  that  the 
fully  developed  ritual  was  prior  to  the  prophets, 
instead  of  the  reverse  as  the  critics  contend. 

In  the  fourth  place,  we  find  in  the  pre-exilian 
prophets  frequent  allusions  to  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt,  and  to  the  history  of  the  people  of  Israel 
as  recorded  in  the  historical  books,  and  that  as 
they  stand  in  the  Old  Testament  without  recon- 
struction by  the  critics.  The  radical  theory  con- 
cerning the  place  and  functions  of  the  prophets 
cannot  be  harmonized  with  the  history  found  in 
Kings  and  Chronicles.  Hence,  the  critics  maintain 
that  the  history  must  be  reconstructed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  terms  of  their  theory  regarding  the 
prophets.  But  this  is  surely  unnecessary  if  we  can 
harmonize  another  and  simpler  view  of  the  pro- 
phetic writings  with  the  contents  of  the  historical 
books.  Hence,  the  conclusion  may  be  securely 
held  against  radical  criticism  that  the  prophets 
presuppose  the  history  just  as  it  stands.  The 
historical  allusions  so  abundant  in  the  prophetic 
writings  would  have  no  meaning  according  to  the 
radical  views  of  certain  critics.  And  this  is  true 
not  only  of  the  historical  references  to  the  people 
of  Israel,  but,  also,  of  the  many  allusions  found  in 
the  prophets  to  the  history  of  the  surrounding  na- 
tions. If  the  radical  theory  of  the  prophets  be 
held,  violence  is  done  to  the  history.      But  when 


THE  PROPHETS.  255 

mere  theory  comes  into  conflict  with  historic  facts, 
we  prefer  to  hold  by  the  facts  and  shape  our  theory 
accordingly.  We  commend  this  line  of  refutation 
of  radical  criticism  to  the  attention  of  those  who 
would  follow  it  out  at  length. 

In  the  fifth  place,  we  find  the  prophets  of  the 
centuries  prior  to  the  Exile  insisting  on  worship  at 
a  single  central  sanctuary.  Even  the  prophets  of 
the  northern  kingdom,  like  Hosea  and  Amos,  do 
this.  Now  the  radical  critics  contend  that  in  this 
we  are  to  find  the  germ  of  that  worship  at  a  single 
sanctuary  which  is  set  forth  in  the  Priests'  code. 
In  our  judgment,  the  far  more  natural  view  is  that 
the  fact  of  worship  at  one  central  shrine  was  the 
law  from  the  first,  that  the  people  often  forgot  this, 
and  worshiped  where  they  ought  not  to  have  ren- 
dered such  service,  and  that  the  great  task  of  the 
prophets  was  to  call  the  people  back  to  the  ideal  of 
days  gone  by,  which  implied  that  the  worship  of 
the  people  was  to  be  rendered  to  one  God  at  one 
central  sanctuary,  and  that  was  where  the  Taber- 
nacle was  planted,  and  where  the  Temple  in  later 
days  was  built  and  furnished. 

In  the  sixth  place,  we  contend  that  the  prophets 
did  not  originate  ethic  monotheism,  as  the  critics 
assume.  They  simply  taught  on  this  subject  what 
was  more  or  less  definitely  the  historical  faith  of  the 
people  from  the  Mosaic  era.  The  Covenant  code 
very  distinctly  announced  monotheism  with  which 
ethical    ideas    were    necessarily    connected.      This 


256  RADICAL   CRITICISM. 

ideal  expressed  in  the  ten  commandments  was  the 
ideal  of  the  people  from  the  first.  They  may  often 
have  fallen  far  short  of  the  ideal,  but  it  was  ever  be- 
fore them.  When  they  fell  into  idolatry,  the  people 
were  punished,  pardoned,  and  restored.  Now,  the 
great  work  of  the  prophets  in  this  connection  was 
not  to  generate  ethic  monotheism,  but  to  call  back 
the  people  in  the  name  of  God  and  by  his  authority 
to  the  ideal  of  ethic  monotheism  to  which  they  were 
committed  from  the  beginning  of  their  remarkable 
career.  Even  a  cursory  reading  of  the  prophets 
will  confirm  this  view. 

In  the  seventh  place,  the  contention  of  the  critics 
in  certain  quarters  that  the  prophets  could  not  have 
lived  and  written  as  early  as  the  conservative  view 
holds  that  they  did,  because  of  the  advanced  ideas 
they  exhibited,  is  ill-founded.  Ultra-radical  critics 
make  much  of  this  point  in  seeking  to  discredit  the 
contents  of  the  prophetic  writings.  But  a  moment's 
reflection  will  show  the  absurdity  of  this  view. 
Take  the  ideas  expressed  in  those  Psalms  which  are 
Davidic  in  origin  and  produced  three  hundred  years 
before  the  early  writing  prophets,  and  note  the 
deep  and  intense  religious  ideas  and  expressions 
found  in  these  Psalms.  Take  the  book  of  Job, 
which  in  spite  of  the  critics,  may  still  be  held  to  be 
of  great  antiquity,  and  note  the  lofty  religious  con- 
ceptions presented  therein.  Or  take  the  songs  of 
Moses,  as  found  in  the  90th  Psalm,  and  in  the  clos- 
ing chapters  of  Deuteronomy,  and  who  shall  say 


THE  PROPHETS.  257 

that  even  the  greatest  of  the  prophets  have  risen  to 
loftier  heights  of  rehgious  thought  and  expression 
than  we  find  in  these  songs.  Of  course,  when  the 
critics  proceed  to  tell  us  that  these  songs  were  not 
uttered  by  Moses,  but  put  in  his  mouth  by  men  of 
centuries  later,  we  simply  demand  ample  proof  for 
such  a  preposterous  assumption.  To  argue  to  what 
actually  was,  from  what  the  critics  think  ought  to 
have  been,  is  simply  absurd. 

In  the  last  place,  the  pre-exilian  prophets  abound 
in  allusions  to  the  details  of  the  mature  Mosaic  law 
to  such  an  extent  and  in  such  a  manner,  that  we 
are  simply  shut  up  to  the  conclusion,  that,  when 
they  wrote,  the  complete  Priests'  code  was  already 
in  existence  among  the  people.  In  Hosea,  in 
Amos,  in  Joel,  in  Isaiah,  and  in  Jeremiah,  all  of 
whom  lived  and  wrote  before  the  days  of  Ezra, 
and  most  of  whom  date  prior  to  Josiah,  we  find  al- 
lusion to  the  priesthood,  to  the  sacrifices  in  detail, 
to  the  one  sanctuary,  to  the  distinction  between  the 
clean  and  unclean,  in  a  way  that  is  inexplicable,  if 
the  Priests'  code  was  not  familiar  to  these  prophets. 
This  is  a  mine  in  which  the  conservative  critic  may 
do  good  work,  and  get  great  gain  in  favor  of  his 
views.  A  careful  study  of  the  prophets  in  the  light 
of  radical  criticism  will  give  fine  results  in  itself, 
and  provide  us  with  abundant  material  with  which 
to  refute  radical  criticism  at  this  point  in  the 
discussion. 
17 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  PSALMS. 

In  the  discussions  of  this  chapter  we  pass  from 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets  to  the  Psalms.  In  doing 
so  we  come  to  a  wide  theme  which  bears  very 
directly  upon  the  matters  in  debate  between  radical 
and  conservative  criticism.  During  recent  years, 
the  exposition  of  the  Psalter  in  the  light  of  advanced 
critical  theories  of  the  religion  of  Israel  has  engaged 
earnest  attention.  Advanced  criticism  has  striven 
to  deprive  David  and  his  age  of  the  honor  of  pro- 
ducing many  of  the  Psalms,  and  some  recent  critics 
seek  to  show  that  nearly  the  whole  of  the  Psalter 
originated  after  the  Exile.  By  such  critics  it  is  de- 
scribed as  the  Praise-book  of  the  second  temple, 
rather  than,  in  its  leading  parts,  the  Psalter  of  the 
first  temple.  In  this  chapter  we  seek  to  deal  with 
the  Psalms  in  relation  to  the  advanced  critical  theo- 
ries now  under  review. 

In  the  first  place,  we  remark  that  the  critics  have 
not  yet  succeeded  in  depriving  David  and  others  of 
his  age  of  the  honor  of  the  authorship  of  the  great 
body  of  the  Psalms.  The  burden  of  proof,  more- 
over, lies  with  the  critics  at  this  point,  and  unless 
they  can  make  out  a  case  against  the  greater  part 
[258] 


THE  PSALMS.  259 

of  the  Psalms  usually  ascribed  to  David's  age, 
enough  will  remain  to  justify  conclusions  against 
radical  criticism  at  this  point.  We  freely  admit 
that  the  titles  or  superscriptions  of  the  Psalms  may 
not  be  inspired  ;  and  yet  we  maintain  that  the 
radical  critics  must  show  how  it  came  to  pass  that 
in  the  Hebrew  texts  these  titles  often  stand  as  the 
first  verse  of  the  Psalms.  But  even  though  they 
may  not  be  inspired,  these  titles  have  the  very 
highest  value  as  historical  evidence,  which  can  only 
be  justly  set  aside  by  similar  evidence  of  a  higher 
value.  Till  such  evidence  is  adduced,  we  may  give 
value  to  the  titles  in  favor  of  authorship.  This 
enables  us  to  place  the  bulk  of  the  Psalter  in 
David's  age,  and  in  connection  with  the  temple  of 
Solomon.  We  are  prepared  also  to  maintain  that 
even  if  the  critics  can  show  that  some  of  the  titles 
are  incorrect,  there  will  still  remain  enough  of  the 
contents  of  the  Psalter  admitted  to  be  Davidic  in 
its  origin,  to  enable  us  to  overthrow  the  main  posi- 
tions of  the  radical  theories  in  regard  to  the  de- 
velopment of  the  religion  of  Israel.  It  is  proper 
to  add  that  the  radical  critics  have  not  yet  shown 
that  in  those  Psalms  which  by  their  titles  are 
ascribed  to  the  Davidic  age,  there  are  contained 
any  matters  or  references  inconsistent  with  their 
origin  in  that  age.  This  negative  position  has  no 
little  value  against  the  critical  theories. 

In   the   second    place,    we   remark   that    in    the 
Psalms   generally,    there    are    such    frequent    and 


260  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

definite  allusions  to  the  history  of  Israel,  as  suffice 
to  refute  the  radical  theories  which  undertake  to 
reconstruct  that  histor)^  in  accordance  with  a  pre- 
conceived theory.  We  cannot  make  full  quota- 
tions here,  but  a  few  examples  will  suffice  to 
illustrate  what  we  mean.  In  Ps.  T]  :  16-20,  we 
have  distinct  allusion  to  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt,  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  Wil- 
derness wandering.  In  Ps.  78:13-20,  the  refer- 
ence to  the  same  great  facts  is  even  clearer.  Indeed 
this  whole  Psalm  which  is  ascribed  to  Asaph,  of 
David's  age,  is  as  clear  a  testimony  to  the  historic- 
ity of  the  early  career  of  Israel  as  can  be  desired.  To 
resolve  it  into  poetic  myth  is  simply  absurd.  In 
Ps.  81  :  10,  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  is  again  re- 
ferred to.  The  whole  of  Psalms  105  and  106,  de- 
serves to  be  read  and  studied  in  this  connection. 
The  entire  outline  of  the  history  of  Israel  is  virtually 
recited  in  these  Psalms.  So  also  Psalms  114,  132, 
135,  and  136,  bear  similar  testimony.  We  ask 
our  readers  to  ponder  these  Psalms  carefully,  simply 
in  relation  to  the  history  which  they  assume  or  im- 
ply, and  then  to  raise  the  question  whether  these 
historical  allusions  can  possibly  be  fictitious,  or 
written  up  long  after  as  the  mere  filling  in  of  the 
ritual  scheme,  as  radical  criticism  contends. 

Now,  our  purpose  in  adducing  the  historic  impli- 
cations of  the  Psalms,  is  to  show  that  the  Psalms 
assume  the  history  as  a  fact,  and  that  we  have  tes- 
timony  of  the  very  highest  value  in  them  to  the 


THE  PSALMS.  261 

history  of  Israel,  not  as  conceived  by  radical  criti- 
cism, but  as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  and  as  main- 
tained by  conservative  criticism.  And,  further, 
it  deserves  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  the  same  con- 
nection, that  if  the  conservative  view  of  the  history 
is  confirmed,  then  the  two  go  together. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  radical  criticism  makes  war 
on  the  history,  for  unless  it  can  justify  historical 
reconstruction,  it  cannot  by  any  ingenuity  make 
out  its  theory  of  the  origin  and  growth  of  relig- 
ious ideas  and  practices.  But  at  this  point  we 
bring  the  critics  face  to  face  with  the  historical 
allusions  in  the  Psalms,  and  demand  an  explana- 
tion of  these  at  their  hands.  Even  if  we  admit 
that  the  whole  Psalter  was  post-exilic,  the  case 
would  not  be  materially  altered,  for  we  have  his- 
torical confirmation  by  the  writers  of  that  age,  and 
by  inspired  men  too,  of  the  main  outlines  of  the 
history  of  Israel  in  a  way  incapable  of  reconcilia- 
tion with  radical  theories.  The  Psalms  of  Davidic 
origin  very  definitely  register  the  views  of  the  pre- 
ceding history  prevalent  at  that  day.  Is  it  possible 
that  the  critics  of  the  present  day  can  know  more 
about  the  history  than  David  and  Asaph  did  .■* 

In  the  third  place,  we  take  the  position  that  the 
advanced  degree  of  religious  thought  and  senti- 
ment, set  forth  in  the  Psalms,  is  far  beyond  what 
was  possible  at  the  Davidic  era  according  to  the 
radical  critics.  This  indeed  the  radical  critics 
assert,  but  our  interpretation  of  the  facts  here  is 


262  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

entirely  different  from  theirs.  They  tell  us  that 
the  Psalms  could  not  have  been  the  product  of 
David  or  his  age,  because  the  development  of 
religious  ideas  had  not  reached  such  a  stage  at  his 
day.  Hence  we  are  told  that  the  Psalms  must  be- 
long to  the  age  when  the  development  of  ritual  and 
legislation  was  complete.  This  puts  them  at  and 
after  the  Exile. 

The  position  we  take  here  in  opposition  to  the 
critics  is  that  we  admit  with  them  the  lofty  spirit- 
ual ideas  and  the  deep  religious  sentiments  which 
the  Psalms  exhibit,  but  we  maintain  on  historical 
ground,  not  on  a  theoretical  basis,  that  this  religious 
stage  was  attained  at  David's  day.  This  is  the 
natural  view  of  the  biblical  narratives,  and  it 
harmonizes  fully  with  the  conservative  position, 
which  holds  that  the  mature  Mosaic  system  was  set 
forth  for  the  people  soon  after  the  Exodus,  and 
prior  to  the  conquest.  With  this  lofty  ideal  before 
them,  the  people  were  led  on  in  religious  knowl- 
edge and  life,  and  in  this  way  they  could  have  had 
no  difficulty  in  making  the  attainments  in  the  age 
of  David,  which  we  find  expressed  in  the  Psalms. 
Moreover,  the  radical  theory,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  based  on  the  evolutionary  idea,  takes  too  low 
a  view  of  the  actual  religious  condition  of  the 
Israelites  at  the  time  they  left  Eg3'pt.  It  is  com- 
pelled to  do  this  by  the  stern  necessities  of  its 
own  theory.  The  true  history  as  vindicated  by  the 
Psalms,  affords  a  basis  to  explain  the  high  religious 


THE  PSALMS.  263 

contents  of  the  Psalms,  without  the  assumption 
that  the  Psahiis  are  to  be  regarded  as  of  a  late 
origin.  The  biblical  view  is  quite  natural,  while 
the  critical  theory  is  very  unnatural. 

In  the  fourth  place,  we  further  contend  in  close 
connection  with  the  preceding  point,  that  even  if 
the  Psalms  were  post-exilic  to  a  very  large  extent, 
they  do  not  really  reflect  the  character  of  that  age. 
If  they  were  the  product  of  that  age,  as  the  critics 
say,  we  would  expect  to  find  in  them  the  special 
features  of  the  age  of  the  Exile.  But  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe,  even  on  the  critical  theory,  that 
there  was  any  deeper  religious  sentiment  prevalent 
among  the  people  in  Ezra's  day  than  in  the  age  of 
David.  The  critics  themselves  seldom  press  their 
argument  at  this  point.  According  to  that  theory 
there  was  elaboration  of  ritual  ;  but  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  there  was  expansion  of  spiritual  life.  Per- 
haps the  opposite  is  true,  and  that  after  the  Exile, 
the  rabbinical  spirit,  tending  to  formality  rather 
than  to  spirituality,  arose. 

There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  prophetic 
writings  of  the  age  of  the  Exile  show  a  deeper  re- 
ligious experience  than  we  find  in  the  prophets  near 
David's  age.  And  it  is  very  clear,  even  to  the  plain 
uncritical  reader,  that  those  Psalms  which  are 
claimed  to  be  post-exilic  do  not  show  any  deeper 
religious  sentiment  than  those  which  even  radical 
critics  admit  to  be  Davidic  in  origin.  The  critics 
are  bound  to   show  that  there   was  this   advance. 


264  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Then  add  to  this  the  fact  that  the  Psalms  in  gen- 
eral do  not  show  any  sympathy  with,  nor  reflect  in 
any  degree  the  spirit  of,  the  Persian  age,  or  of  the 
rabbinical  spirit  which  soon  after  arose,  and  we 
have  a  strong  case  against  advanced  criticism  re- 
garding the  Psalms  and  their  place  in  the  religious 
development  of  Israel. 

In  the  fifth  place,  the  Psalms  uniformly  teach 
ethical  monotheism,  and  worship  at  one  central 
sanctuary.  This  is  so  evident  that  we  need  scarcely 
cite  proofs.  One  God,  the  only  living  and  true 
God,  is  to  be  worshiped,  idolatry  is  constantly 
condemned,  and  one  sanctuary  emphasized  as  the 
proper  place  of  worship.  The  critics  cannot  deny 
this,  but  they  hope  to  escape  its  force  by  the  post- 
exilic  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  most  of  the  Psalms. 
If,  therefore,  we  make  out  the  Davidic  origin  of  the 
greater  part  of  the  Psalter,  and  vindicate  the  real 
nature  of  the  historical  allusions  contained  therein, 
as  we  think  we  have  done,  then  ethical  monothe- 
ism, the  condertination  of  idol  worship,  and  the 
obligation  to  worship  at  a  single  sanctuary,  all  ex- 
isted as  a  matter  of  fact  in  David's  age.  This  tells 
forcibly  against  radical  criticism  at  an  important 
point.  The  following  passages  may  be  consulted 
in  support  of  our  position  :  Ps.  9:11;  11:4; 
20  :  2  ;  24  :  7  ;  27  :  4  ;  48  :  2,  3  ;  63  :  2  ;  76  :  2  ; 
"]"]'.  13.  These  passages  all  refer  to  a  single  sanctu- 
ary. And  observe  that  most  of  them  are  from 
Psalms  which  have  strong  claims  to  belong  to  Da- 


THE  PSALMS.  265 

vid's  age.  Nor  can  the  critics  show  that  greater 
emphasis  is  laid  upon  worship  at  a  single  sanctuary 
in  the  Psalms  of  the  age  of  the  Exile.  To  quote 
passages  against  idol  worship  and  in  favor  of  mono- 
theism is  unnecessary.  We  merely  refer  to  Psalm 
1 1  5  in  passing. 

In  the  last  place,  the  Psalms  viewed  generally 
presuppose  at  almost  every  turn  the  Mosaic  ritual 
and  legislation  ;  and  we  maintain  that  they  cannot 
be  squared  with  any  theory  that  would  find  their 
origin  in  any  other  supposition  than  that  the 
Psalms  reflect  the  Mosaic  spirit  in  its  mature  stage. 
This  is  a  very  wide  field.  It  indeed  affords  mate- 
rial for  a  whole  treatise,  so  that  we  can  only  sig- 
nalize it  in  closing  this  chapter.  In  the  Psalms  of 
David's  age,  as  fully  as  anywhere  else,  we  find  allu- 
sions to  the  Mosaic  sacrifices,  to  the  Feasts,  to  the 
Tabernacle,  and  to  the  Priests  in  a  way  which  is 
simply  inexplicable  on  the  radical  theory.  We 
wish  that  we  had  space  to  work  this  out  fully. 
We  only  mark  out  the  lines  briefly,  and  leave  the 
reader  to  fill  out  further  particulars. 

As  to  ritual  and  sacrifice,  see  Ps.  26  : 6  ;  40  : 6  ; 
50  :  5  ;  51:7;  66  :  1 3-1  5.  In  these  and  similar 
passages  we  have  references  to  those  offerings 
which  are  found  in  all  the  so-called  codes  of  the 
radical  critics,  at  or  near  the  age  of  David. 

As  to  the  Tabernacle  and  the  Temple,  see  Ps, 
15:1;  27:5;  28:2;  42:4;  43:3,4;  46:4; 
63  :  2  ;  65  :  1-3.     These    are   but   a  few   passages 


266  RADICAL   CR/TTCISM. 

which  show  the  existence  of  the  Tabernacle  and 
Temple,  and  with  them  mature  Mosaism,  at  least 
at  the  time  of  David,  centuries  prior  to  the  date 
assigned  to  it  by  the  radical  critics. 

As  to  the  priesthood,  we  quote  the  following : 
Ps.  87  :  64  ;  99:6;  115:10;  122;  132:9-16; 
133  !  135  •  20.  These  Psalms  allude  to  the  priest- 
hood in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  out  the  view  that 
it  was  then  a  complete  graded  system.  Hence, 
unless  the  radical  critics  can  make  good  the  claim 
that  these  passages  are  all  post-exilic  in  their 
origin,  there  is  much  force  in  them  against  the 
radical  critical  theories. 

Finally,  there  are  frequent  allusions  to  a  covenant 
and  a  lazu,  terms  which  presuppose  the  Mosaic 
scheme.  Then  there  are  words  and  phrases  in  the 
Psalms  which  seem  to  be  drawn  from  the  complete 
Mosaic  system.  Such  are  the  terms :  banners, 
glory,  goodly  heritage,  sJiadoiv  of  the  zcings,  con- 
gregation. These  and  similar  phrases  indicate 
how  completely  the  spirit  of  the  mature  Mosaic 
system  is  reflected  in  the  Psalms.  Without  this 
S3'stem  the  Psalms  could  scarcely  be  what  they 
are,  and  we  may  justly  ask  radical  criticism  for  an 
explanation. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE    GOSPEL    NARRATIVES. 

Having  virtually  completed  the  discussions  aris- 
ing from  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
their  bearing  upon  the  conclusions  of  radical  criti- 
cism, we  pass  in  this  chapter  to  consider  some 
things  of  vital  importance  to  the  questions  raised, 
which  emerge  from  a  perusal  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  chapter  will  deal  specially  with  the 
Gospel  narratives.  Here  the  most  prominent  feat- 
ure is  the  view  which  our  Lord  himself  took  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  the  religious  system  which 
it  unfolds. 

If  he  took  certain  views,  the  question  is  :  How 
are  these  to  be  understood  and  explained  .?  And 
so,  in  like  manner,  in  regard  to  those  passages  in 
the  Gospels  which  come  from  their  inspired  au- 
thors :  How  are  we  to  regard  their  interpretation 
of  the  Old  Testament  History  and  religious  system  >. 
These  questions  indicate  at  once  how  important 
the  Gospel  narratives,  and  especially  the  teaching 
of  our  Lord,  become  in  the  adequate  discussion  of 
the  questions  in  debate  between  radical  and  con- 
servative criticism.  Some  care,  then,  must  be 
exercised  in  their  treatment,  for  the  whole  question 

[267] 


268  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

of  the  way  in  which  Jesus  understood  and  ex- 
pounded the  Old  Testament  history  and  ritual  is 
here  involved.  It  is  evident  also  that  the  accovi- 
inodation  and  kenosis  theories  in  regard  to  the 
earthly  career  of  our  Lord  are  also  in  sight  in  the 
reasonings  of  the  radical  critics,  as  they  attempt  to 
turn  the  edge  of  the  teaching  of  the  great  Teacher 
away  from  their  reconstructive  theories  of  the 
Mosaic  system.  We  deal  with  several  points  in 
order  in  this  chapter,  and  shall  conclude  it  with 
some  brief  notice  of  the  consequences  which  follow 
from  the  views  of  the  radical  critics  in  relation  to 
the  person  of  Christ. 

In  the  first  place,  there  are  in  the  Gospels  such 
plain  and  definite  references  to  the  history  of  the 
Old  Testament,  that  the  reconstructive  theories  of 
the  advanced  critics  cannot  be  reconciled  there- 
with. In  other  words,  the  views  of  the  history  of 
the  Old  Testament  period  given  in  the  Gospels 
agree  with  the  opinions  of  conservative  critics, 
which  simply  means  that  these  opinions  best  rep- 
resent the  views  set  forth  in  the  Gospel  history. 

In  Matt.  1 1  :  21-24  there  is  allusion  to  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  and  especially  to  Sodom,  which  agrees  en- 
tirely with  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament.  In 
Matt.  12:3,  there  is  reference  to  David  and  the 
shewbread,  which  shows  that  our  Lord  endorsed 
the  view,  that  in  the  days  of  David  the  Tabernacle 
service  and  the  Priestly  code  were  in  vogue.  In 
Matt.   12  :  40,  41,  our  Lord  confirms  the  historicity 


THE   GOSPEL  NARRATIVES.  269 

of  the  case  of  Jonah  and  the  great  fish,  and  uses  it 
as  an  emblem  of  his  own  resurrection.  In  Matt. 
24  :  37,  the  history  of  Noah  is  confirmed,  together 
with  the  reality  of  the  deluge.  There  is  no  hint  at 
myth  or  reconstruction  here  whatever. 

In  Mark  3  :  8  ;  6  :  11;  12  :  26-36  ;  in  Luke  4  : 
26,  27  ;  II  :  30-51  ;  17  :  26-32 ;  20  :  37  ;  and  in 
John  3  :  14  ;  6  :  31,  there  are  similar  references  to 
important  facts  in  the  history  of  Israel.  They  are 
nearly  all  made  by  our  Lord  himself,  and  are  unique 
in  that  respect.  From  them  we  conclude  that  it  is 
clear  that  our  Lord  did  not  hold  views  in  harmony 
with  modern  radical  critics.  Our  Lord  not  only 
confirms  the  natural  historical  view  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, but  he  also  binds  these  facts  to  some  of 
the  great  doctrines  he  taught,  in  such  a  way  as  to 
cause  the  fact  and  the  doctrine  to  stand  or  fall 
together.  The  lifting  up  of  the  serpent  in  the  wil- 
derness and  the  death  of  Christ  ;  the  case  of  Jonah 
and  His  resurrection ;  the  experience  of  Noah 
and  the  end  of  the  world,  illustrate  this  feature  of 
the  way  in  which  our  Lord  used  Old  Testament 
history.  How  puerile  the  radical  theories,  which 
reduce  these  facts  to  something  little  better  than 
myths,  seem  beside  the  methods  of  our  Lord  here  ! 

In  the  second  place,  the  Gospels  uniformly 
ascribe  the  Old  Testament  law  and  ritual  to  a  Mo- 
saic origin.  Our  Lord  does  this  constantly,  so 
much  so  that  if  the  radical  critics  are  right,  he 
either  blundered,  or  intentionally  took  the  preva- 


270  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

lent  though  erroneous  view.  A  few  passages  will 
illustrate  the  case  in  hand. 

In  Matt.  19:7,  we  read  concerning  divorce, 
"Why  did  Moses  then  command,  etc.,"  where  the 
reference  is  to  the  Deuteronomic  code.  In  Mark 
10:  3,  we  have  the  same  reference.  In  Mark  12  : 
19,  concerning  marrying  a  brother's  wife,  we  read, 
' '  Master,  Moses  zurote  ; "  and  although  these  are 
the  words  of  Sadducees,  Jesus  did  not  contradict 
them,  or  state  that  they  were  in  error  on  that 
point.  In  Luke  20  :  28,  we  have  the  same  thing. 
In  Luke  24  :  27,  we  have  reference  to  "  Moses  and 
all  the  prophets,"  made  by  Jesus  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, in  a  way  which  suggests  the  Mosaic  origin  of 
the  law.  So  in  John  5  :  45  ;  7:19;  8  :  5,  we  have 
allusions  to  the  law  of  Moses,  in  terms  which  leave 
no  room  to  doubt  that,  rightly  or  wrongly,  our 
Lord  ascribed  the  Old  Testament  ritual  and  legisla- 
tion to  a  Mosaic  origin,  at  least  in  the  sense  that  it 
arose  in  that  age.  Here  again  the  critics  have  a 
serious  task  to  deal  with,  and  we  shall  see,  later 
on,  how  they  attempt  to  handle  it.  Our  Lord 
clearly  assumes  a  Mosaic  genesis  for  the  whole 
S3^stem  which  was  known  as  the  "Law  of  Moses" 
in  his  day.  This  testimony  is  of  prime  importance 
and  value. 

In  the  third  place,  there  are  in  the  Gospels  such 
references  to  the  priests,  and  to  the  Levitical  sys- 
tem, as  justify  us  in  maintaining  that  the  critical 
theory   of  a  graded  priesthood,    of  different  docu- 


THE  GOSPEL   NARRATIVES.  271 

merits,  and  of  three  distinct  codes,  is  not  supported 
by  the  view  of  the  Old  Testament  rehgion  pre- 
sented in  the  Gospels.  In  other  words,  the  Gospel 
view  is  that  there  was  a  peculiar  unity  and  a  com- 
pleteness from  the  first  in  the  Mosaic  system.  This 
point  can  only  be  briefly  illustrated. 

In  Matt.  5  :  23,  24,  we  have  a  matter  referred  to 
which  belongs  to  what  the  critics  call  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code,  in  regard  to  bringing  the  gift  to  the 
altar,  and  being  reconciled  to  our  brother.  In  Matt. 
8  :  4,  where  the  case  of  the  leper  is  described,  allu- 
sion is  made  to  the  contents  of  the  Priestly  code, 
as  the  critics  would  say.  So  also  in  Matt.  21:15; 
26  :  3,  14,  17  ;  27:  20  ;  in  Mark  2:25;  10  :  18-27; 
in  Luke  2  :  22  ;  4  :  3,  4  ;  5  :  14  ;  20  :  19,  we  have 
allusions  to  various  elements  in  the  Mosaic  system, 
such  as  the  priests,  the  feasts,  the  cleansings,  and 
the  sacrifices,  which  are  significant  in  this  connec- 
tion. We  are  sure  that  any  candid  and  reverent 
study  of  these  passages  will  show  that  the  radical 
critical  theory  requires  us  to  give  a  strangely  forced 
meaning  to  every  one  of  them.  The  point  we  em- 
phasize is  that  the  Gospel  narratives,  and  especially 
the  words  of  our  Lord,  know  nothing  whatever  of 
the  necessity  of  a  reconstructed  Old  Testament,  or 
of  a  diversity  of  ritual  and  legal  codes  which  only 
came  gradually  into  existence.  And  further,  in  one 
or  two  cases  our  Lord  hints  that  this  was  the  ideal 
state  which  was  before  the  people  from  the  first  for 
their  observance.      In  regard  to  divorce,   he  says. 


272  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

"From  the  beginning  it  was  not  so,"  which  surely 
indicates  that  the  development  theory  of  the  radical 
critics  is  not  the  true  key  to  unlock  the  problem 
of  the  religion  of  Israel.  The  first  stage  was  the 
ideal,  and  the  second  was  a  lower  stage,  not  a 
higher.  For  ourselves,  we  are  inclined  to  prefer 
the  authoritative  interpretation  of  the  religious  sys- 
tem of  Israel  made  by  the  great  Teacher,  to  the 
vague  and  ill-digested  theorizings  of  the  radical 
critics.  And  we  shall  do  well  to  be  careful  that  no 
view  which  shall  dishonor  our  Lord  is  forced  upon 
us  by  the  relentless  demands  of  a  mere  theory. 

In  the  fourth  place,  a  passing  reference  may  be 
made  to  the  bearing  of  the  contents  of  the  gospel 
on  the  radical  theory  in  reference  to  the  book  of 
Isaiah.  As  our  readers  are  aware,  the  critics  di- 
vide this  book  into  two  parts,  and  give  the  latter 
section  —  40  to  66  —  a  later  origin  and  a  different 
author.  The  important  passages  here  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  Matt.  4:  14-16;  8:  17;  12:17;  15:7; 
Mark  T  -.d  \  Luke  3:4;  John  12  :  38.  From  these 
passages,  it  is  evident  that  the  writers  of  the  Gos- 
pels, and  our  Lord  whose  words  are  herein  quoted, 
knew  nothing  of  a  dcutcro-\'~>-dA2\\.  The  whole  book 
was  evidently  viewed  by  them  as  a  unit,  and  was 
called  by  the  title  "Isaiah."  The  quotations  and 
references  made  by  our  Lord  himself  from  the 
latter  part  of  the  book  are  ascribed  to  Isaiah  in  a 
way  which  leaves  little  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the 
reader  as  to  what  was  his  view  of  these  sections  o( 


THE   GOSPEL   NARRATIVES.  273 

Isaiah.  Now  the  burden  of  proof  clearly  rests  with 
the  radical  critics,  not  only  to  show  that  this  part 
of  the  prophecy  could  not  have  originated  in 
Isaiah's  day,  but  also  to  present  another  author 
who  will  meet  the  demands  of  the  case  as  the  au- 
thor of  the  second  Isaiah.  Mere  destructive  criti- 
cism offering  no  reconstruction,  mere  denial  of  a 
given  authorship  without  also  providing  another, 
can  never  be  satisfactory  nor  sufficient.  As  against 
our  Lord,  the  radical  critics  must  do  much  more 
than  they  have  done  before  they  shall  have  made 
out  their  case  against  the  unity  of  Isaiah. 

In  the  fifth  place,  it  is  worth  while  noting  the 
fact  that  while  in  the  Gospel  age  the  Priests'  code, 
as  the  critics  would  say,  ruled  completely  the  relig- 
ious life  of  the  Jews,  yet  in  the  Gospel  narratives, 
there  is  no  more  allusion  to  its  existence  in  these 
narratives  than  there  is  in  the  earlier  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  its  existence  at  that  time.  Now, 
if  we  allow  the  critical  argument  of  "  non-existence 
because  of  silence  "  to  have  weight  in  regard  to  that 
early  age,  it  has  equal  weight  in  reference  to  the 
Gospel  age,  and  would  in  like  manner  prove  the 
non-existence  of  the  mature  Mosaic  system  in  that 
age.  We  have  seen,  however,  that  the  historical 
and  other  allusions  in  both  ages  prove  its  continu- 
ous existence,  and  thus  again  we  see  that  the  argu- 
ment a  silcntio  proves  too  much  or  too  little,  and 
so  has  no  force  whatever.  This  consideration  is 
pertinent,  even  if  we  take  into  account  the  fact 
|8 


274  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

that  the  Gospels  were  not  written  in  the  interests 
of  the  Jewish  rehgion.  The  mere  historical  allu- 
sions in  the  Gospels  to  the  Mosaic  code  is  all  we 
need,  to  make  good  our  position  at  this  point,  and 
to  show  the  illogical  methods  of  radical  criticism, 
in  dealing  with  the  Gospel  history. 

In  the  last  place,  the  attempt  of  radical  criticism 
to  get  rid  of  the  argument  against  its  conclusions 
from  the  Gospels,  may  be  described  as  a  frantic 
failure.  The  real  debate  here  relates  to  the  testi- 
mony of  our  Lord.  How  can  this  be  squared  with 
radical  criticism }  Two  main  efforts  have  been 
made  by  the  critics.  The  one  is  a  phase  of  the 
accommodation  theory,  and  the  other  arises  from  an 
application  of  the  modern  kenosis  theory  in  regard 
to  the  person  of  Christ.  We  cannot  discuss  these 
theories  at  length,  but  can  only  point  out  the  straits 
to  which  radical  criticism  is  driven  at  these  two 
points. 

In  regard  to  the  first,  the  critics  seek  to  show 
that  our  Lord  in  his  allusions  to  the  Old  Testament, 
either  fell  unconsciously  into  the  prevalent  errors  of 
the  age  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  religious 
system  of  Israel,  or  purposely  accommodated  his 
teaching  to  views  of  that  system  which  he  knew  to 
be  erroneous.  In  either  case  radical  criticism  must 
rise  and  explain.  If  our  Lord  was  ignorant,  how 
is  this  to  be  harmonized  with  his  knowledge  ;  if  he 
knowingly  endorsed  an  error,  how  then  is  his  integ- 
rity to  be  preserved }     We  simply  leave  these  ques- 


THE   GOSPEL  NARRATIVES.  275 

tions  with  the  radical  critics,  and  await  their  resolu- 
tion of  the  dilemma.  In  addition  it  further  devolves 
upon  radical  criticism  to  show  that  the  popular  view 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  existed  in  our  Lord's 
day  was  as  far  astray  as  this  criticism  assumes. 
Even  if  led  astray  in  some  things  by  the  traditions 
of  the  fathers,  it  does  not  follow  that  its  errors  con- 
firm advanced  criticism. 

Touching  the  modern  kcnosis  theory  we  can  only 
remark  that  on  doctrinal  grounds  we  believe  it  to 
be  as  dangerous  as  the  older  kcnosis  doctrine  of  our 
Lord's  person.  Even  if,  therefore,  advanced  criti- 
cism demands  for  its  explanation  the  kcnosis  idea, 
it  may  be  that  the  support  of  a  mere  critical  hy- 
pothesis has  been  purchased  at  the  cost  of  clear 
scriptural  views  of  the  deity  of  our  Lord.  If  the  Son 
of  God  so  became  the  Son  of  man  that  he  was  no 
longer  truly  the  Son  of  God,  and  consequently  but 
a  man  in  his  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  its  religion,  we  charge  radical  criticism  with 
procuring  its  vindication  by  betraying  the  true  doc- 
trine of  our  Lord's  divinity  in  order  to  obviate  the 
force  of  our  Lord's  testimony  against  its  theory  of 
the  religion  of  Israel.  At  this  stage  we  simply 
await  the  further  explanation  Vv-hich  advanced  criti- 
cism is  bound  to  give  of  the  Gospel  witness,  and 
the  unique  testimony  of  our  Lord. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

OTHER    NEW   TESTAMENT    BOOKS. 

Having  in  the  last  chapter  dealt  with  the  Gospel 
narratives  in  their  relation  to  radical  criticism,  we 
now  proceed  to  gather  up  a  few  things  from  the 
other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  in  order  to  see 
what  their  teaching  is  concerning  the  debate  be- 
tween radical  and  conservative  criticism.  The  ex- 
position can  only  touch  in  a  hurried  way  a  few 
salient  points.  The  main  sections  of  the  New 
Testament  which  are  of  importance  here  are  the 
Acts,  Romans,  Galatians,  and  Hebrews.  In  these 
books  we  find  many  allusions  to  the  history  of 
Israel,  to  their  system  of  ritual  and  legislation,  and 
to  the  manner  of  its  origin  and  growth,  which  in 
our  judgment  cannot  be  easily  reconciled  with  the 
conclusions  of  radical  criticism.  Indeed,  we  are 
quite  willing  to  take  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
alone  as  affording  a  complete  refutation  of  the  rad- 
ical theories  from  the  standpoint  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. This  epistle,  and  the  address  of  Stephen 
have  not,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  been  explained  in 
a  satisfactor}'  way  in  harmony  with  the  main  posi- 
tions of  radical  criticism.  But  let  us  see  a  few 
[276J 


OTHER  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.         277 

points  which  may  go  far  to  justify  the  claims  of 
conservative  criticism. 

In  the  first  place,  from  the  Acts  we  can  gather 
some  important  facts.  In  chapter  3  :  22-26,  we 
have  the  words  of  Peter  in  regard  to  the  teaching 
of  the  prophets  concerning  Jesus.  Here  Peter  evi- 
dently held  to  views  of  the  history  of  Israel  and 
Abrahamic  covenant  different  from  those  advanced 
by  radical  critics.  In  chapter  1:16;  2  :  25-34  ;  4  : 
25-28,  we  have  references  to  the  Psalms,  made  by 
Peter  chiefly,  which  assign  important  Psalms  to 
David,  and  by  implication  the  bulk  of  them  to  his 
age.  In  chapter  6  :  1 1-14 ;  15  :  21  ;  21  :  21  ;  28  : 
23,  we  have  the  clear  teaching  of  Peter  and  Paul  as 
to  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  whole  law  and  ritual 
connected  with  his  name.  These  passages  deserve 
careful  study  since  they  show  what  these  two  in- 
spired apostles  taught  in  regard  to  the  unity  and 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  whole  religious  system  of  the 
Old  Testament.  This  teaching,  if  it  means  any- 
thing in  relation  to  the  debate  between  radical  and 
conservative  criticism,  is  a  complete  refutation  of 
the  former.  It  entirely  ignores  it,  and  knows 
nothing  about  it.  Again,  in  chapter  1 3  :  39  ;  15:5; 
18:15;  24:  14;  28  :  17,  we  have  references  to  im- 
portant details  the  Mosaic  ritual  made  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  connect  it  all  with  the  name  and  age 
of  Moses,  and  to  present  it  as  a  well-defined  unit, 
not  as  a  series  of  codes  arising  in  succession,  by  a 
process  of  historical  stratification. 


278  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Perhaps  the  strongest  single  passage  in  the  Acts 
is  the  outHne  of  Stephen's  defense  which  has  been 
given  us  by  Luke  in  the  seventh  chapter.  We  ask 
our  readers  to  turn  to  this  chapter  and  read  it  care- 
fully in  the  light  of  modern  critical  theories.  Here 
the  history  in  which  the  ritual  and  legislation  are 
imbedded  is  given  in  brief,  graphic,  and  compre- 
hensive form,  from  Abraham  down  to  the  crucifix- 
ion of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  call  of  Abraham, 
which  some  critics  explain  as  a  natural  migration, 
the  custom  of  circumcision,  which  some  say  was 
borrowed  from  the  Egyptians,  the  sojourn  and 
affliction  in  Egypt,  which  some  critics  regard  as 
mythical,,  the  whole  career  of  Joseph,  the  life  of 
Moses,  and  the  Exodus  under  him,  are  recited 
with  great  accuracy  in  the  light  of  the  Pentateuch. 
The  wonders  of  Sinai,  and  the  giving  of  the  lively 
oracles  there,  the  incident  of  the  golden  calf,  a 
definite  allusion  to  the  Tabernacle  in  the  wilder- 
ness, made  according  to  the  fashion  which  Moses 
had  seen,  the  bringing  of  this  Tabernacle,  which 
of  course  had  the  complete  ritual  associated  with 
it,  by  Joshua  into  Canaan,  the  building  of  the 
Temple  under  David  and  Solomon,  and  many 
other  particulars,  are  described  in  a  manner  which 
cannot  fail  to  impress  in  a  peculiar  way  the  reader 
who  may  have  been  perusing  some  of  the  radical 
theories.  In  particular,  verses  44-46  present  a 
view  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  ritual  connected 
with  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  late  origin  of 


OTHER  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.       279 

the  Tabernacle  and  the  so-called  Priestly  code, 
impossible,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  set  aside  the 
inspired  authority  of  the  author  of  the  Acts.  More- 
over, these  verses  assume  a  Mosaic  origin  for  the 
Tabernacle,  and  they  know  nothing  whatever  about 
the  three  codes.  So,  too,  the  whole  defense  made 
by  Stephen  lays  stress  on  the  era  of  Moses  as  the 
central  period  of  Jewish  history  and  religious  inter- 
est, and  has  scarcely  anything  to  say  of  the  days  of 
Josiah  and  Ezra  when  the  radical  critics  solemnly 
inform  us  that  mature  Mosaism  arose.  In  a  word, 
almost  every  feature  of  radical  criticism  can  be 
refuted  by  the  wonderful  contents  of  Stephen's 
remarkable  apology.  It  would  be  an  interesting 
exercise  to  attempt  to  reconstruct  this  apology  in 
such  a  way  as  to  bring  it  into  harmony  with  radical 
criticism.  Such  an  exercise  our  readers  can  follow 
out  for  themselves  ;  and  we  venture  the  opinion 
that  whoever  does  this,  will  be  convinced  of  its 
absurdity,  and  be  prepared  to  take  his  place  beside 
Stephen,  Luke,  and  may  we  not  add,  the  conserva- 
tive critics.  Moreover,  this  reconstructed  apology 
would  be  of  no  special  value  for  the  purpose  which 
Stephen  had  in  view. 

In  the  second  place,  we  may  gather  some  of  the 
teachings  of  Paul  in  Romans,  Corinthians,  and 
Galatians  under  a  single  head,  in  order  to  see  how 
Paul  can  be  brought  into  harmony,  if  such  a  thing 
is  possible,  with  advanced  critical  conclusions.  Tn 
Rom.  4  :  i-6,  we  have  significant  allusions  to  Abra- 


2<S0  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

ham  and  David,  and  to  the  part  they  played  in  the 
Old  Testament  religion.  In  Rom.  9  :  4,  we  have 
a  very  important  statement  about  the  advantages 
of  the  Jews,  inasmuch  as  they  had,  among  other 
things,  "the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law, 
and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises."  In 
other  parts  of  the  same  chapter  we  have  pertinent 
allusions  to  Hosea  and  Isaiah,  not  easily  harmonized 
with  critical  views.  Chapters  10  and  11  deserve 
careful  study  in  the  same  connection,  but  we  can- 
not refer  to  particulars  in  this  discussion,  which  is 
only  too  brief. 

In  I  Cor.  10  :  1-5,  the  facts  of  the  Exodus  are 
referred  to,  and  the  spiritual  rock,  which  was  with 
the  people  in  the  Wilderness,  is  spoken  of.  In  2 
Cor.  3  :7-i5,  Paul  gives  a  plain  statement  con- 
cerning the  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  and  connects  the 
whole  Old  Testament  economy  with  the  name  of 
Moses.  Surely  Paul,  an  inspired  man,  had  pecu- 
liar authority,  and  his  views  are  to  be  regarded  as  of 
great  weight  in  this  debate.  And  even  if  we  leave 
out  of  account  the  quality  of  inspiration,  we  are 
surely  entitled  to  believe  that  Paul,  who  was  a 
thoroughly  trained  man  in  the  law,  knew  better 
what  its  origin  was  than  any  dozen  modern  critics 
who  cannot  even  yet  agree  as  to  what  the  assured 
results  of  criticism  really  are. 

In  Galatians  there  are  one  or  two  passages  to 
which  brief  reference  must  now  be  made.  In 
chapter  3  :  16-29,  ^^'e  have  a  remarkable  exposition 


OTHER  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.        281 

of  the  Mosaic  law  in  relation  to  Christ,  where  the 
law  is  described  as  a  pedagogue  to  bring  us  to 
Christ.  According  to  this  passage,  the  law,  evi- 
dently regarded  as  a  complete  fact,  was  given  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after  Abraham.  This 
view  of  the  Jews  cannot  be  easily  harmonized  with 
the  critical  view  that  complete  Mosaism  did  not 
appear  as  an  actual  fact  among  the  people  till  the 
age  of  Ezra.  So  in  chapter  4  :  22-31,  we  have  the 
allegory  of  Sarah  and  Hagar,  in  which  Sinai  has 
prominence  in  reference  to  the  Old  Testament 
economy  as  represented  by  Hagar.  We  simply 
ask  the  radical  critics  to  give  an  interpretation  of 
this  allegory  consistent  with  their  theories.  The 
result  so  far  as  we  can  possibly  see  would  be  per- 
fectly absurd.  For  ourselves,  we  prefer  to  hold  by 
Paul,  even  if  we  thereby  incur  the  charge  that  our 
scholarship  is  quite  defective,  and  that  our  views 
are  so  conservative  as  to  be  entirely  antiquated,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  critics. 

In  the  third  place,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
has  great  force  against  radical  criticism.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  settle  the  question  of  the  authorship 
of  this  epistle,  although  our  own  opinion  still  is 
that  those  who  deny  its  Pauline  authorship  have 
not  yet  succeeded  in  making  out  their  case.  In 
the  present  discussion  all  we  need  to  do  is  to  take 
the  epistle  as  canonical  and  inspired,  and  then 
seek  to  discover  the  meaning  of  its  contents  in 
relation    to   the    theories    of    the   Old    Testament 


282  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

set  forth  by  radical  criticism.  The  epistle  has  its 
well-defined  theory  of  the  Mosaic  system,  and  the 
question  is  as  to  its  bearing  upon  the  debate  be- 
tween radical  and  ■  conservative  criticism.  As  this 
feature  of  the  criticism  of  radical  theories  is  vitally 
important,  we  notice  a  few  points  drawn  from  this 
epistle. 

In  the  third  chapter  we  have  the  contrast  drawn 
between  Moses  and  Christ  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
the  former  the  head  of  the  Old  Testament  house, 
as  Jesus  Christ  is  of  his  house.  The  leadership  of 
Moses  in  the  Exodus  is  also  recognized  in  this  chap- 
ter, as  also  the  fatal  Wilderness  experience  of  that 
age.  .  Moses  is  evidently  the  historic  and  legislative 
center  of  the  Old  Testament  system  as  exhibited  in 
this  passage. 

In  chapters  5,  6,  7,  we  find  the  case  of  Melchise- 
dec  discussed  at  length,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to 
confirm  the  history  of  Abraham's  day  and  the  pre- 
dictions of  David's  age.  The  fourteenth  chapter  of 
Genesis,  and  the  one  hundred  and  tenth  Psalm 
should  be  studied  in  this  connection.  In  these 
chapters  of  Hebrews  now  under  notice  also,  there 
is  frequent  reference  to  many  particulars  of  the 
Levitical  system,  such  as  the  priesthood,  the  sacri- 
fices, the  covenant  and  its  promises,  in  such  a  way 
as  to  exhibit  the  view  which  the  writer  of  this 
epistle  held  of  the  Mosaic  system.  By  him  it  was 
clearly  held  that  the  Mosaic  system  was  a  unit,  and 
that  it  had  all  the  elements  of  completeness  for  its 


OTHER   NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.        283 

temporary  purpose  from  the  beginning.  In  contrast 
with  Melchisedec  we  have  the  Levitical  priests  of 
the  Aaronic  order  mentioned  in  chapter  6  :  ii,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  imply  the  existence  of  this  order, 
and,  of  course,  of  the  ritual  service  with  which 
they  were  connected,  from  the  time  of  Aaron.  The 
several  orders  of  the  priests  are  also  hinted  at. 

In  chapters  8  and  9,  the  Tabernacle  is  described 
and  interpreted  in  a  most  interesting  and  minute 
way.  A  whole  chapter  would  be  needed  to  bring 
out  the  full  force  of  these  chapters  against  radical 
criticism.  The  discussion  here  naturally  connects 
itself  with  a  former  chapter  on  the  Tabernacle  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Here  we  are  told  that  Moses 
made  the  Tabernacle  according  to  the  pattern 
showed  him  in  the  Mount.  This  epistle,  therefore, 
proves  the  Mosaic  genesis  of  the  Tabernacle,  and 
this  carries  with  it  the  ritual  of  the  Priests'  code, 
especially  the  solemnities  of  the  Day  of  Atonement. 
Then,  too,  the  particulars  of  the  Mosaic  system 
are  referred  to  in  these  chapters  in  various  ways. 
The  distinction  between  the  clean  and  unclean, 
the  divers  washings,  and  the  carnal  ordinances,  are 
mentioned  in  9  :  10.  The  fact  of  a  testament,  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  calves,  the  water,  the  scarlet 
wool,  and  the  hyssop,  are  noted  in  the  same  chap- 
ter later  on,  and  the  meaning  of  the  whole  in  rela- 
tion to  Christ  is  explained.  The  unity  and  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  whole  scheme  which  is  here  described 
as  fulfilled  in  Christ,  are  assumed  by  the  author  of 


284  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

the  epistle.  Let  the  radical  critic  attempt  to  re- 
construct these  two  chapters  in  accordance  with 
his  theories,  and  he  will  surely  be  ashamed  of  the 
practical  application  of  his  theories  to  this  epistle. 
The  author  of  Hebrews  expounding  the  Tabernacle 
was  evidently  not  a  radical  critic. 

In  the  tenth  chapter,  we  have  further  exposition 
of  the  sacrificial  system  of  the  religion  of  Israel, 
and  of  the  order  of  priests  who  officiated  under 
that  system.  In  verse  28,  the  whole  of  this  system 
is  termed  "Moses'  law,"  which  surely  means  that 
the  author  of  this  epistle  believed  that  the  entire 
ritual  and  legal  scheme  was  Mosaic.  If  we  admit 
that  the  author  was  in  error,  we  seriously  impugn 
the  inspiration  of  that  author.  Here  again  we 
challenge  radical  criticism  to  bring  this  chapter 
into  any  sort  of  harmony  with  its  naturalistic, 
unhistorical,  reconstructive  theories.  Let  the  at- 
tempt be  made,  that  we  may  see  the  form  this 
chapter  will  take  in  the  revised  version  which  ad- 
vanced criticism  is  in  duty  bound  to  make. 

In  the  eleventh  chapter,  we  have  a  record  of  the 
heroes  of  faith  given,  which,  in  some  respects,  re- 
sembles the  defense  of  Stephen  already  alluded  to. 
Here,  as  in  that  defense,  the  history  is  followed  ; 
and  as  the  sketch  proceeds,  there  rise  up  befor-i 
us,  Abel,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob, 
Joseph,  Moses,  and  other  worthies.  Here  Abra- 
ham and  Moses  have  great  prominence  given  them, 
while  the  later  history  of  Israel  in  those  periods 


OTHER  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.        285 

when  advanced  criticism  claims  that  the  chief  part 
of  the  ritual  system  arose,  are  passed  over  with  the 
utmost  brevity.  The  author  of  the  epistle  evi- 
dently attached  far  more  importance  to  the  hand 
and  age  of  Moses  than  the  radical  critics  do.  Here 
reconstruction  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  light 
of  radical  theories,  would  be  a  tempting  task  did 
space  permit.  It  would  be  an  effective  rcdiictio  ad 
absiirdinn  of  radical  criticism. 

There  are  other  things  in  the  epistle  of  which  we 
would  like  to  have  written  ;  and  in  other  portions 
of  the  New  Testament  there  are  many  things  which 
the  radical  critics  must  explain  in  accordance  with 
their  theories  of  the  Old  Testament  before  they 
have  made  out  their  case,  but  at  this  point  we 
must  close  the  discussion.  The  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews especially  cannot  be  expounded  by  radical 
criticism. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

DOCTRINAL    CONSIDERATIONS. 

At  various  stages  in  our  discussions,  and  espe- 
cially in  the  two  chapters  on  the  New  Testament 
in  its  relation  to  radical  criticism,  we  have  seen 
that  the  views  we  are  to  take  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  system  are  necessarily  affected  by 
the  conclusions  of  this  school  of  criticism.  In  this 
chapter  we  proceed  to  consider  this  topic  a  little 
more  fully  than  we  3'et  have  done,  so  that  the 
general  bearing  of  radical  criticism  upon  some 
of  the  essential  Christian  doctrines  may  appear. 
In  doing  so,  we  shall  be  careful  to  keep  in  mind 
that  doctrinal  or  dogmatic  views  should  not  alone 
determine  our  views  in  matters  of  biblical  criti- 
cism. Exegesis  provides  the  materials  for  dog- 
matics. Yet,  at  the  same  time,  we  feel  justified 
in  looking  at  the  results  of  criticism  in  their  re- 
lation to  well-defined  doctrinal  conclusions.  If 
in  doing  so,  the  result  should  appear  to  be  that 
mere  theories  on  the  field  of  criticism  are  brought 
into  conflict  with  well-grounded  and  essential  doc- 
trines drawn  from  the  Scriptures,  we  shall  not 
hesitate  to  examine  these  theories  with  the  utmost 
care.  Criticism  and  dogmatics,  therefore,  have 
[286] 


DOCTRINAL    CONSIDERATIONS.  287 

their  mutual  relations,  and  in  this  chapter  we  shall 
be  careful  to  keep  these  in  view,  yet  not  allow  doc- 
trine to  be  dominated  by  mere  critical  theory. 

In  the  first  place,  radical  criticism  comes  into 
conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the  Script- 
ures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  It  has  already 
been  pointed  out  that  the  organic  unity  and  integrity 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  seriously  endangered  by 
the  methods  of  literary  vivisection  which  the  critics 
pursue.  The  point  we  now  further  raise  has  special 
reference  to  the  New  Testament.  According  to 
radical  criticism,  there  can  be  no  real  bond  binding 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  Scriptures  together. 
The  historical  continuity  of  the  stream  of  revelation 
is  broken,  the  typical  significance  of  much  of  the 
Mosaic  system  is  lost,  and  the  force  of  the  predic- 
tive element  in  prophecy  is  largely  destroyed,  if  the 
religion  of  Israel  is  merely  a  natural  product  of  the 
Semitic  genius  of  the  people  among  whom  it  origi- 
nated. The  Christian  system,  together  with  the 
literature  pertaining  to  it,  is  at  best  a  higher  stage 
in  the  development  of  religion,  and  in  no  proper 
sense  possessed  of  a  supernatural  element.  There 
is  no  spiritual  bond  to  connect  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  or  to  link  together  into  an  organic 
whole  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
whole  spirit  and  methods  of  advanced  criticism 
look  in  the  direction  of  destruction  and  dismember- 
ment, rather  than  toward  construction  and  unifica- 
tion.     The  spirit  of  that  one  divine  life  which,  we 


288  RADICAL  CRITICISM. 

believe,  breathes  all  through  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
is  in  great  danger  of  being  crushed  out  by  the  crit- 
ical machine. 

In  the  second  place,  radical  criticism  demands  a 
recasting  of  the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  sacred 
Scripture.  As  a  matter  of  fact  radical  criticism 
often  denies  inspiration  of  any  kind,  and  regards 
the  Scriptures  as  the  natural  sacred  literature  of 
one  of  the  great  religions  of  the  world.  More  mod- 
erate critics  profess  to  hold  a  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion, but  maintain  that  the  old  views  of  that  doc- 
trine must  be  set  aside,  and  a  new  doctrine  which 
is  more  in  harmony  with  the  results  of  modern 
criticism,  must  be  framed.  Usually  the  doctrine  is 
formulated  by  stating  that  the  people  of  Israel  were 
under  divine  guidance,  and  that  in  a  sense  God 
was  present  in  their  national  and  religious  life. 
Then  the  Scriptures  are  held  to  be  the  natural 
product  of  this  inspired  people,  but  as  a  record 
they  are  marked  by  various  human  imperfections. 

Now,  the  question  we  raise  against  radical  criti- 
cism here,  is  this  :  Is  the  doctrine  of  inspiration 
which  it  formulates  an  adequate  one  }  Does  it 
meet  the  claim  which  the  Scriptures  make  concern- 
ing their  own  nature  as  the  word  of  God  .-'  We 
think  not.  For  instead  of  the  Scriptures  being  the 
natural  product  of  the  Jewish  nation  and  Church, 
that  nation  and  Church  were  the  product  of  these 
Scriptures.  That  the  Scriptures  could  not  be  the 
mere    natural   historical    product    of   the   times  in 


DOCTRINAL    CONSIDERATIONS.  289 

which  they  originated,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  in 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  ages,  the  con- 
tents and  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  were  in 
advance  of  their  times,  and  held  forth  an  ideal  to- 
ward which  the  people  were  to  strive.  Moses  and 
Christ  were  both  in  advance  of  their  times,  and  so 
their  teaching  cannot  be  merely  natural  wisdom 
which  was  the  product  of  the  age  alone.  Then, 
too,  the  claims  which  the  authors  of  the  Scriptures 
make  to  speak  for  God,  cannot  well  be  harmonized 
with  the  views  of  inspiration  which  radical  criticism 
tells  us  must  speedily  prevail.  But  we  cannot  en- 
large upon  this  important  point,  nor  need  we  do 
so,  for  it  has  already  been  discussed. 

In  the  third  place,  according  to  radical  criticism 
we  contend  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Christ  of  the 
New  Testament,  has  no  real  basis  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Even  in  the  Old  Testament  the  conti- 
nuity of  the  Messianic  promise  is  broken  again  and 
again  by  the  radical  theories.  In  like  manner  the 
New  Testament  fulfillment  of  that  promise  is  so  sepa- 
rated from  the  Old  Testament  that  the  connection 
is  often  entirely  lost  sight  of.  In  like  manner  the 
meaning  of  the  Mosaic  sacrifices  and  ritual  as  typ- 
ical of  Christ  is  obliterated,  and  neither  the  various 
sacrifices  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  nor  the  one 
sacrifice  offered  by  Christ  on  the  cross,  has  any  re- 
demptive significance  in  relation  to  the  gracious 
divine  purpose  and  plan  to  save  sinful  men.  Christ's 
person,  his  offices,  and  his  work  have  no  organic 
19 


290  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

spiritual  connection  with  the  Old  Testament  if  the 
naturalistic  conclusions  of  radical  critics  are  admit- 
ted. In  this  case  we  shall  surely  be  wise  to  pause 
till  we  see  how  far  the  modification  of  our  doctrine 
of  Christ  must  be  made  at  the  behest  of  the  critics. 
We  ought  at  least  to  be  most  careful  not  to  allow 
radical  criticism  to  rob  us  of  the  divine  Messiah, 
who  was  spoken  of  by  prophet,  chanted  in  praise 
by  psalmist,  typified  by  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and 
incarnate  in  the  fullness  of  time.  Of  him,  Moses 
wrote,  to  him  all  the  prophets  bare  witness,  and  he 
came  to  fulfill  the  law,  not  to  destroy  it.  With 
jealous  care,  therefore,  we  shall  surely  guard  the 
honor  of  our  divine  Redeemer  from  the  subtle  as- 
saults of  the  relentless  critics. 

In  the  fourth  place,  some  of  the  cardinal  doc- 
trines of  redemption  are  seriously  affected  by  the 
reasonings  and  conclusions  of  the  radical  critics.  If 
the  evolutionary  view  of  the  Old  Testament  religion 
be  adopted,  then  the  sacrificial  system  of  that  re- 
ligion was  purely  natural,  and  can  have  no  special 
divine  authority.  If  this  be  so,  we  naturally  ask  on 
what  ground  can  we  hold  that  Christ  died  for  our 
sins  according  to  the  '  Scriptures  1  Then,  too,  if 
natural  development  be  the  true  principle  accord- 
ing to  which  the  unfolding  of  the  religious  knowl- 
edge contained  in  the  Old  Testament  took  place, 
what  place  can  be  found  for  the  covenant  idea  of 
which  so  much  is  said  in  the  Old  Testament }  This 
covenant,  especially  in  the  form  of  the  evangelical 


DOCTRINAL    CONSIDERATIONS.  29l 

covenant,  or  covenant  of  grace,  implies  not  simply 
a  natural  human  development  of  religion,  but  a  di- 
vine gracious  purpose  to  redeem  and  sanctify  sinful 
men.  If,  therefore,  we  destroy  the  covenant  basis 
of  the  Old  Testament,  we  certainly  affect  most  seri- 
ously the  covenant  factor  in  the  New. 

This  is  a  far-reaching  conclusion.  It  affects  the 
whole  question  of  man's  relations  to  God  and  the 
divine  law,  and  it  modifies  the  views  we  take  of  the 
mode  of  his  restoration  and  recovery  from  sin.  If 
naturalistic  views  of  the  religion  of  Israel  be  ac- 
cepted, then  we  must  reach  naturalistic  conclusions 
in  regard  to  the  religion  of  Jesus.  According  to 
these  naturalistic  conclusions,  the  gospel  is  no 
longer  a  divine  remedy  for  a  dreadful  malady. 
Redemption  is  mere  natural  improvement  of  the 
individual.  No  objective  scheme,  with  its  provis- 
ions for  reconciliation  between  God  and  man,  is 
needed,  in  fact,  none  is  possible.  A  simple,  natural, 
subjective  experience  is  all  that  we  require.  Hence 
the  whole  covenant  idea,  with  its  Mediator  and 
mediation,  must  be  set  aside,  and  a  simple  process 
of  self-conducted  moral  culture  is  all  that  men  re- 
quire to  secure  salvation. 

It  is  evident  also,  that  the  supernatural  nature  of 
the  experiences  involved  in  regeneration  and  sancti- 
fication  is  ruled  out  by  radical  criticism.  Hence 
not  only  is  tlie  objective  reality  of  the  atonement 
denied,  but  the  supernatural  nature  of  the  life  of 
God  in  the  human  soul  is  set  aside.      In  a  word, 


202  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

radical  criticism  affects  some  of  the  most  essential 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  both  as  they  relate  to  the 
objective  facts  by  which  redemption  is  provided, 
and  as  to  the  subjective  experiences  by  means  of 
which  redemption  is  applied  to,  and  received  by, 
us.  Moreover,  the  view  of  sin  which  we  must  hold 
is  also  modified  by  radical  criticism,  and  the  effects 
of  sin  upon  the  race  are  minimized  as  much  as  pos- 
sible. In  a  word,  radical  criticism  would  introduce 
confusion  into  the  gospel  scheme,  and  compel  such 
a  modification  of  some  of  its  great  doctrines  as 
would  make  it,  indeed,  another  gospel,  which 
would,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  be  no  gospel  at  all. 

In  the  fifth  place,  no  proper  place  is  given  for 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  radical  criticism. 
This  is  true  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  and  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  Natural  evolu- 
tion, not  supernatural  revelation,  is  assumed  to 
explain  everything  here,  and  so  the  office  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  scarcely  needed.  So  in  the  case  of 
the  New  Testament  the  same  is  true.  And  even 
on  the  experimental  side  of  religion,  if  natural  cul- 
ture be  all  that  experimental  religion  implies,  then 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  renew  and  sanctify  is  not  really 
needed.  The  consequences  of  radical  criticism  at 
this  point  are  very  serious.  We  frankly  confess 
our  inability  to  see  how  these  results  can  be 
brought  into  harmony  with  what  the  Scriptures 
themselves  teach  in  regard  to  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  and  concerning  the  true  nature  of  religious 


DOCTRINAL   CONSIDERATIONS.  293 

life  in  the  soul.  That  radical  criticism  dishonors 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  so  evident  a  manner,  is  one  of 
the  most  serious  objections  which  we  have  to  its 
methods  and  conclusions  on  doctrinal  grounds. 

In  closing  this  chapter  it  is  only  proper  to  remark 
that  what  we  have  said  applies  especially  to  radical 
critical  conclusions  of  naturalistic  type.  We  are 
well  aware,  and  have  been  careful  not  to  overlook 
it  in  this  chapter,  that  there  are  critics  who  pursue 
the  reconstructive  methods  concerning  the  Script- 
ures and  the  religion  they  unfold,  and  who  at  the 
same  time  claim  that  they  do  not  reject  the  su- 
pernatural nature  of  this  religion.  That  there  are 
such  reverent  critics  we  gladly  admit.  But  at  the 
same  time  we  wish  to  point  out  that  those  who 
take  this  position  are  attempting  to  stand  in  very 
slippery  places,  and  if  not  extremely  careful  they 
may  suddenly  fall.  Many  of  these  men,  we  be- 
lieve, are  better  than  the  principles  they  hold  in 
regard  to  the  Scriptures,  but  the  decided  tendency 
will  almost  surely  be  to  pass  more  and  more  into 
the  region  of  naturalism,  if  naturalistic  methods 
are  adopted.  The  utmost  care  should,  therefore, 
be  taken  at  this  juncture,  for  we  believe  that  in  the 
end  there  will  be  found  no  '  permanent  middle 
ground  between  thorough-going  naturalism  and  con- 
sistent supernaturalism.  We  close,  therefore,  with 
this  note  of  warning  regarding  the  doctrinal  dan- 
gers of  radical  criticism. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE    EVIDENCE    OF    ARCHEOLOGY. 

The  last  chapter  completed  our  review  of  doc- 
trinal considerations  in  relation  to  the  conclusions 
of  radical  criticism.  In  general,  it  was  indicated 
that  the  contents  of  the  New  Testament,  especially 
the  testimony  of  our  Lord  and  the  teachings  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  cannot  well  be  harmonized 
with  the  views  of  the  Old  Testament  which  radical 
criticism  announces  with  so  much  assurance.  If 
Old  Testament  reconstruction  is  necessary,  equally 
so  is  that  of  the  New  Testament,  and  radical  critics 
must  not  be  allowed  to  overlook  this  view  of  the 
subject. 

In  this  chapter  we  pass  to  what  might  be  termed 
extra-scriptural  evidence,  and  proceed  in  a  very 
brief  way  to  indicate  the  force  of  the  results  of 
recent  archaeological  researches  in  the  East  in  rela- 
tion to  some  of  the  contentions  of  radical  criticism. 
To  a  certain  extent  this  is  historical  testimony  at 
first  hand,  and,  in  part,  it  is  monumental  evidence 
of  the  highest  order. 

In  our  present  limits  it  is  impossible  to  give  any 
adequate  description  of  the  vast  mass  of  materials 
which  arc  now  at  the  disposal  of  scholars  in  this 
[294] 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  ARCHEOLOGY.       295 

field.  During  the  past  twenty-five  or  thirty  years, 
excavations  have  been  carried  on  in  the  old  lands 
where  the  events  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  oc- 
curred. In  Egypt,  in  Assyria,  and  in  Babylonia, 
the  old  ruins  were  first  made  to  yield  their  long- 
kept  secrets.  In  quite  recent  years  the  pick  and 
spade  have  been  busy  in  Arabia,  in  Syria,  in  Phoe- 
nicia, and  in  Palestine,  with  similar  results.  By 
means  of  these  excavations,  cylinders  with  cunei- 
form writing,  tablets  with  elaborate  inscriptions, 
and  stone  monuments  with  engraved  characters, 
have  been  uncovered  in  great  numbers. 

Then  a  band  of  noble  scholars,  with  great  pa- 
tience and  wonderful  skill,  have  been  studying 
these.  In  doing  so,  immense  difficulties  had  to  be 
overcome.  To  discover  the  key  by  which  the  hi- 
eroglyphic and  cuneiform  writing  could  be  inter- 
preted, was  long  a  difficulty.  But  the  Rosetta 
Stone,  in  due  time,  by  means  of  the  Greek,  sup- 
plied this  key.  New  alphabets  had  to  be  formed, 
but  by  degrees  this  was  done,  and  now  the  deciph- 
ering and  interpreting  of  these  old  records  can  be 
effected  with  comparative  ease  and  accuracy. 

Thus  the  brick  cylinders  from  the  mounds  of 
Babylon  and  Nineveh,  the  neat  tablets  found  at 
Tel-el-Amarna,  the  Moabite  stone  discovered  at 
Dibhon,  and  the  inscriptions  at  the  pool  of  Siloam, 
have  spoken  to  us,  and  their  messages  have  im- 
mense value  at  the  present  day  in  confirming  the 
historicity  of  the  narratives  found  in  the  Old  Tee:- 


296  RADICAL  CRITICISM. 

tament,  and  in  enabling  us  to  refute  sceptical 
objections  to  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Against  the 
advanced  theories  of  radical  criticism,  the  verdict 
of  the  monuments  is  of  the  highest  importance,  as 
we  are  enabled  thereby  to  test  these  theories  by 
means  of  unquestioned  extra-scriptural  facts.  It 
does  seem  remarkable  that  just  when  such  testi- 
mony was  specially  needed,  then  Providence  opened 
up  these  old  ruins  and  caused  them,  after  centuries 
of  silent  oblivion,  to  utter  their  voice  in  tones  so 
unmistakable  as  to  strike  terror  into  the  hosts  of 
the  sceptics,  and  confirm  the  sometimes  wavering 
faith  of  the  company  of  believers. 

In  like  manner  just  when  radical  criticism  was 
so  boldly  announcing  its  attractive  theories,  the 
very  stones  are  made  to  cry  out  against  these  base- 
less speculations.  In  this  chapter  we  can  only  point 
out  some  of  the  lines  of  investigation,  and  indicate 
some  of  the  conclusions  which  support  the  general 
views  of  conservative  criticism,  based  on  recent 
archaeological  evidence. 

In  the  first  place,  the  mythical  view  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  early  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  re- 
ceives its  death  blow  from  the  monuments.  A 
century  ago,  and  even  less,  when  there  was  little 
evidence  beyond  the  Scriptures  to  confirm  their 
real  historical  nature,  and  when  the  mythical  views 
of  the  early  classic  ages  prevailed,  the  mythical 
theory  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  early  career 
of  Israel  had  free  scope.     At  least,   the  materials 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  ARCHAEOLOGY.         297 

outside  of  the  Scriptures  for  its  refutation  were  not 
at  hand,  so  that  it  could  make  unhindered  progress. 

But  the  time  came,  less  than  fifty  years  ago, 
when  in  classic  lands  men  began  to  dig  in  the  earth 
on  the  supposed  sites  of  ancient  cities.  Thus  an- 
cient Troy  was  uncovered  by  Schliemann,  and  it 
was  shown  thereby  that  Homer's  Iliad  was  not  a 
mere  poetic  myth.  Other  classic  scenes  in  Greece, 
Italy,  and  Asia  Minor  were  explored,  and  concrete 
facts  overpowered  mythical  theories.  So  in  like 
manner  in  the  lands  of  Bible  story,  the  same  thing 
has  taken  place.  From  Egypt,  from  Chaldea,  from 
Arabia,  and  from  Palestine,  old  records  of  various 
kinds  have  been  unearthed  which  forever  explode 
the  mythical  explanation  of  the  biblical  account  of 
the  creation,  of  the  deluge,  of  the  exodus,  and  the 
wilderness  experience  of  Israel.  The  Chaldean  ac- 
counts of  the  creation  and  deluge  deciphered  from 
the  cylinders,  and  the  contents  of  the  Tel-el-Amarna 
tablets  found  in  Egypt  are  of  special  significance  in 
this  connection.  In  the  light  of  these  evidences, 
the  mythical  theory  vanishes  away  like  the  morning 
mist  before  the  rising  sun. 

In  the  second  place,  the  evidence  of  archaeology 
confirms  and  explains  the  real  historical  nature  of 
the  biblical  narratives  at  many  points.  The  rec- 
ords from  Egypt  confirm  the  Mosaic  account  of  the 
Exodus  ;  and  the  Chaldean  inscriptions,  together 
with  those  of  Assyria,  explain  some  historical 
difficulties  in  Kings  and  Chronicles,   and  establish 


298  RADICAL    CRITTCISM. 

beyond  doubt  the  truth  of  the  biblical  history  of 
those  periods.  Rawlinson  and  Smith  have  shown 
this  with  great  fullness  and  force.  Each  succeeding 
discovery  of  buried  literature  only  enlarges  the 
confirmation,  and  there  is  good  reason  to  expect 
that  when  further  explorations  are  made  in  Arabia 
and  Palestine,  where  excavations  have  little  more 
than  commenced,  additional  materials  for  the  ex- 
planation and  confirmation  of  biblical  history  will 
come  to  light.  The  value  of  such  historical  and 
monumental  evidence  is  exceedingly  great.  It 
speaks  at  the  present  day  just  as  its  voice  was 
when  first  it  came  into  existence,  thirty  centuries 
ago.  And  by  its  utterances  the  whole  general  out- 
line of  the  history  of  Israel  is  confirmed,  and  so  far 
as  the  monuments  are  concerned,  no  reconstruction 
such  as  radical  criticism  proposes  is  necessary. 

In  the  third  place,  we  point  out  the  fact  that  if 
the  general  outlines  of  the  history  of  Israel,  as  it 
nov/  stands  in  the  biblical  record,  be  established, 
then  it  carries  with  it  the  main  features  of  the  leg- 
islation and  ritual  as  given  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
as  having  its  existence  from  the  Mosaic  era.  The 
testimony  of  the  monuments  gives  similar  promi- 
nence to  the  Mosaic  age  that  the  biblical  story 
does,  and  little  confirmation  is  given  to  the  conten- 
tion of  the  radical  critics  that  the  period  of  Ezra 
was  the  time  of  important  developments  in  the 
religious  life  of  Israel.  This  really  means  that  the 
natural    evolutionary   explanation  of   this  religious 


THE  EVIDENCE   OF  A R THEOLOGY.       299 

life  must  be  abandoned,  and  the  conclusion  adopted 
that  that  life  had  its  real  origin  in  the  age  of  Moses 
and  in  connection  with  the  Exodus,  when  the  ritual 
and  legal  scheme  was  given  to  the  people  as  the 
ideal  by  which  they  were  to  frame  their  national 
and  religious  life  in  Canaan. 

In  addition,  the  result  of  the  monumental  evi- 
dence renders  untenable  much  of  the  speculations 
concerning  the  various  literary  fragments  and  vari- 
ous codes  supposed  to  exist  in  the  Scriptures.  The 
origin  by  piecemeal  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  in  har- 
mony with  what  the  inscriptions  reveal.  If  there 
are  various  successive  strata  in  the  Scriptures,  as 
the  critics  contend,  we  would  expect  to  discover 
some  traces  of  this  in  the  monuments.  But  such 
is  not  the  case,  as  Sayce  has  so  well  pointed  out. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  evidence  now  under 
notice  proves  the  existence  and  extensive  use  of 
writing  at  a  very  early  period.  This  is  important 
in  several  respects.  It  has  been  objected  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  that  writing 
was  not  practiced  to  such  an  extent  as  to  render 
it  possible  for  Moses  to  have  written  the  books 
with  which  his  name  has  been  so  closely  identified. 
In  like  manner,  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  main 
part  of  the  early  books  of  the  Old  Testament  could 
only  have  assumed  their  final  literary  form  in  later 
ages.  Radical  criticism  has  not  been  slow  to  avail 
itself  of  this  claim  in  support  of  its  contention  that 
the  religious  system  of  Israel,   with  the  literature 


;300  RADICAL  CRITICISM. 

which  sets  it  forth,  was  a  gradual  growth,  and  did 
not  assume  its  mature  form  and  complete  contents 
till  long  after  the  time  usually  ascribed  to  it.  One 
almost  instinctivel}^  recalls  the  fact  here  that  ration- 
alistic scepticism  of  a  century  ago,  and  radical  criti- 
cism of  recent  3''ears  have  virtually  joined  hands  in 
assailing  what  are  called  the  old  views  of  the  Script- 
ures and  the  religion  of  Israel.  Strange  extremes 
sometimes  meet. 

Against  this  whole  line  of  reasoning,  the  recent 
verdict  of  the  tablets  and  monuments  is  clear  and 
unmistakable.  The  cuneiform  writing  found  on 
the  cylinders  of  Chaldea  and  Assyria  a  generation 
ago  gave  indications  that  views  formerly  held  re- 
garding the  antiquity  of  the  art  of  writing  would 
have  to  be  revised.  Later  discoveries,  especially 
the  contents  of  the  tablets  found  at  Tel-el-Amarna 
in  lower  Egypt,  prove  conclusively  that  writing  was 
known  and  extensively  used  at  and  even  prior  to 
the  Exodus  at  the  era  of  Moses.  These  tablets 
were,  with  slight  exceptions,  written  in  the  Chal- 
dean cuneiform  characters,  and  are  so  extensive  as 
to  form  quite  a  library.  From  them  it  is  evident 
that  not  only  were  historical  and  national  records 
kept,  but  that  an  extensive  correspondence  was 
carried  on  between  Egypt  and  the  East  almost  a 
century  before  the  age  of  Moses  and  the  conquest 
of  Canaan.  The  names  and  dates  found  in  these 
tablets  are  so  definite  that  there  can  be  no  doubt 
regarding  their    antiquity,   so  that  their  testimony 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  ARCHAEOLOGY.         301 

may  be  regarded  as  unquestionable.  Not  only  are 
the  contents  of  the  early  biblical  history  confirmed 
by  these  inscriptions,  but  the  existence,  on  an  ex- 
tensive scale,  of  the  art  of  writing  is  forever  proved. 
This  being  the  case,  one  argument  against  the  Mo- 
saic authorship  of  the  early  books  of  the  Bible,  and 
in  favor  of  certain  factors  in  the  radical  critical 
scheme,  is  slain  and  buried  out  of  sight. 

In  the  fifth  place,  the  tablets  and  inscriptions 
imply  the  prevalence,  in  early  times,  of  a  compara- 
tively high  degree  of  literary  and  intellectual  at- 
tainment. Their  contents  justify  the  conclusion 
that  in  Egypt,  Chaldea,  and  in  the  whole  Ca- 
naanite  region  there  was  a  much  higher  measure 
of  civilization  than  is  often  supposed.  The  con- 
tents of  the  Tel-el-Amarna  tablets  reveal  domestic, 
legal,  commercial,  and  national  transactions  which 
exhibit  a  complex  and  somewhat  mature  civiliza- 
tion of  these  peoples.  Doubtless,  as  discoveries 
proceed,  further  facts  will  be  brought  to  light  to 
confirm,  and  perhaps  enlarge,  this  conclusion  re- 
garding the  early  culture  of  the  people  associated 
with  the  Bible  at  the  beginning  of  its  history.  It 
may  be,  also,  that  some  of  these  discoveries  may 
be  made  in  northern  Arabia,  and  in  Palestine, 
where  but  little  has  yet  been  done  to  bring  these 
hidden  literary  treasures  to  light. 

The  force  of  this  general  conclusion  regarding 
early  civilization  in  this  region,  against  certain 
phases  of  radical  criticism,  is  evident.      When  the 


302  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

supporters  of  this  type  of  criticism,  in  their  advo- 
cacy of  the  natural  evolutionary  theory  of  the  ori- 
gin and  growth  of  the  nation  and  religion  of  Israel, 
speak  of  wandering  tribes  of  nomadic  habits,  and 
of  really  no  literary  culture,  or  definite  monothe- 
istic religious  ideas,  as  constituting  the  condition 
of  things  out  of  which  Israel  and  its  religion  came, 
they  are  face  to  face  with  the  contents  of  the 
monumental  evidence  supplied  by  these  recently 
found  tablets.  And  the  testimony  of  these  tablets 
is  against  the  critics,  and  condemns  the  evolution- 
ary theory  of  the  genesis  and  progress  of  the  relig- 
ion of  Israel  at  its  initial  stage.  So  far  as  the 
tablets  are  concerned,  Israel  need  not  have  com- 
menced its  career  in  that  low  degree  of  literary  and 
religious  culture  upon  which  certain  critics  insist  so 
much. 

In  closing  this  chapter,  we  wish  to  emphasize 
the  abiding  value  of  this  line  of  research.  From 
various  points  of  view  it  is  useful.  It  confounds 
sceptics,  and  it  confirms  faith.  It  explains  the 
Scriptures  and  expands  our  views  of  their  contents. 
It  removes  seeming  inconsistencies  in  the  Script- 
ures, and  sometimes  corrects  erroneous  interpreta- 
tions into  which  students  may  have  fallen.  In  like 
manner,  at  the  present  day,  this  field  of  archaeol- 
ogy is  one  of  the  most  important,  outside  of  the 
Scriptures,  wherein  we  may  find  materials  by 
which  to  test  and  sift  the  claims- and  reasonings 
of   modern  radical   critics.     Much  has  been  done 


EVIDENCES   OF  ARCHAEOLOGY.  303 

already,  but  much  remains  still  to  be  done  in  this 
field,  and  we  welcome  every  addition  which  is 
made  to  the  already  extensive  store  of  facts  which 
have  been  exhumed.  Let  the  work  go  on.  The 
greater  the  light,  the  clearer  the  truth  will  shine, 
and  the  more  distinctly  will  the  false  be  exhibited 
in  its  true  colors. 

The  value  of  the  testimony  which  comes  from 
this  field  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  is  extra-script- 
ural and  absolutely  unbiased.  Having  only  the  con- 
tents of  the  Scriptures  to  deal  with  and  reason  from, 
there  was,  of  course,  difference  of  opinion  without 
any  other  witness  to  give  testimony  in  the  case,  and 
there  was  room  for  any  amount  of  mere  speculation 
and  critical  castle-building  beyond  the  contents  of 
the  Scriptures.  But  the  monumental  evidence 
comes  as  an  independent  witness  of  probity  and  im- 
partiality, and  its  value  is  of  the  very  highest  order. 

We  rejoice  in  the  work  of  the  Rawlinsons  and 
the  Smiths,  of  the  Layards  and  the  Bottas,  of  the 
Lenormants  and  the  Navilles,  of  the  Brugschs  and 
the  Sayces,  of  the  Petries  and  the  Blisses,  of  the 
Pinches  and  the  Schraders,  of  the  Masperos  and 
the  Trumbulls.  It  sheds  increasing  light  on  the 
Scriptures,  and  really  makes  the  Bible  a  bigger  and 
a  brighter  book.  It  strengthens  the  defenses  round 
about  it,  and  inspires  the  faith  and  courage  of  its 
defenders. 

This  work  also  gives  timely  warning  to  all  con- 
cerned that  the  explorations  which  it  makes  may 


304  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

spring  a  mine  under  some  of  the  leading  detach- 
ments of  radical  criticism.  The  pick  and  spade  of 
the  archaeologist  may  speedily  supply  a  blunt  and 
ready  reply  to  the  pen  and  lance  of  the  radical 
critic.  Some  part  of  this  reply  has  already  been 
given,  and  we  are  sure  that  there  is  more  coming 
very  soon. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

SUMMARY. 

Through  thirty-four  chapters  we  have  pursued 
our  discussion  concerning  Higher  Criticism.  We 
have  considered  especially  its  advanced,  or  radical 
phases.  Nearly  every  aspect  of  the  debate  be- 
tween radical  and  conservative  criticism  has  been 
touched  upon,  although  in  many  cases  the  treat- 
ment was  far  too  meager.  In  this  chapter  a 
general  summary  may  be  useful  in  the  way  of 
gathering  together  the  main  results  which  have 
been  attained  during  the  entire  discussion. 

At  the  outset  of  the  exposition,  several  chapters 
were  devoted  to  a  description,  or  explanation,  of 
biblical  criticism.  Higher  Criticism,  and  of  radical, 
advanced,  or  rationalistic  criticism,  in  particular. 
Here  we  were  careful  to  point  out  that  Higher 
Criticism,  rightly  pursued,  is  a  proper  and  useful 
branch  of  biblical  study,  and  that  it  was  only  cer- 
tain forms  of  this  criticism  which  were  to  be  sub- 
jected to  careful  scrutiny.  These  forms  are  such 
as  pursue  their  investigation  in  a  purely  rationalis- 
tic spirit,  forgetful  of  the  real  nature  of  the  religion 
and  literature  represented  by  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
20  [ 305  ] 


300  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

Against    these    we    feel    bound    to    wage    constant 
warfare  in  the  interests  of  the  truth. 

Then  several  chapters  were  devoted  to  a  com- 
pact history  of  this  phase  of  literary  and  historical 
criticism  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  of  the  sys- 
tem of  ritual  and  legislation  which  they  unfold. 
From  the  days  of  Porphyry  down  to  the  present 
time,  this  sketch  was  pursued.  Stress  was  laid 
upon  the  work  of  Spinoza  and  Astruc.  The  de- 
velopment of  radical  criticism  in  connection  with 
German  rationalism  and  the  Hegelian  philosophy 
Vv'as  followed  out  briefly.  And,  finally,  the  move- 
ments of  the  present  day,  in  Europe  and  America, 
were  described.  Here,  especially,  the  way  in 
which  radical  criticism  has  passed  in  recent  years 
from  Teutonic  to  Anglo-Saxon  circles  was  pointed 
out.  Moreover,  it  is  worth  while  noting  the  fact 
that  in  all  its  earlier  stages  this  type  of  criticism 
was  made  from  without  the  Church,  and  against 
the  Christian  S3'stem. 

la  its  later  stages,  and  especially  during  the 
present  century,  this  mode  of  criticism  has  appeared 
ivitliin  the  Church,  and  has  proceeded  to  carry  on 
its  work  within  the  enclosure  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem. All  along  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  the 
history  of  the  radical  critical  movement  is  itself  a 
strong  argument  against  it  ;  and  its  general  effects, 
where  it  had  time  to  bear  its  legitimate  fruit,  consti- 
tute its  crushing  condemnation.  Of  course,  this  re- 
lates to  radical  critical  methods  of  Higher  Criticism. 


SUMMARY.  307 

When  the  historical  sketch  was  complete,  we 
proceeded  in  a  somewhat  detailed  manner  to  pre- 
sent a  statement  of  the  principles  and  methods  as- 
sumed and  followed  by  radical  critics.  Here  the 
underlying  philosophical  principles  were  shown  to 
be  closely  allied  with  idealistic  pantheism,  which, 
of  course,  excludes  the  idea  of  the  supernatural. 
An  evolutionary  explanation  of  the  origin  and 
growth  of  religion,  and  the  denial  or  minimizing 
of  the  supernatural  in  the  form  of  inspiration, 
naturally  followed.  That  many  higher  critics  of 
advanced  tendencies  profess  to  retain  the  doctrine 
of  the  inspiration  of  sacred  Scripture  was  also  indi- 
cated, but  that  the  logic  of  radical  critical  methods 
leads  most  surely  to  a  denial  or  ignoring  of  an  in- 
spired and  authoritative  word  of  God,  such  as  the 
Bible  claims  to  be,  was  also  pointed  out,  partly  as 
a  statement  of  fact,  and  partly  as  a  warning  to 
those  reverent  critics  who  are  trying  to  do  what  is 
impossible,  in  attempting  to  follow  the  critical 
methods  of  Teutonic  rationalism  and  at  the  same 
time  maintain  the  tenets  of  Anglo-Saxon  orthodox 
doctrine  of  sacred  Scripture. 

The  exposition  next  led  us  to  explain  a  variety 
of  particulars  with  which  Higher  Criticism  has  to 
deal.  The  documentary  hypothesis  of  the  litera- 
ture, the  theory  of  the  three  codes  of  the  religious 
ritual,  the  reconstruction  of  the  history,  especially 
at  the  eras  of  Moses,  Josiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Ezra, 
the  Tabernacle,  the  graded  priesthood,  the  ritual  of 


308  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

the  annual  feasts,  the  prophets  in  their  relation 
to  the  law,  and  the  contents  of  the  Psalms  were 
the  leading  particulars  which  passed  under  review 
in  a  series  of  successive  chapters. 

Having  completed  this  statement,  we  passed  on 
to  make  a  somewhat  extended  and  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  whole  field  covered  by  the  exposition 
and  statement  referred  to  above.  This  criticism, 
followed  in  the  general  lines  of  the  statement  made, 
through  several  chapters  toward  the  close,  dealing 
with  the  New  Testament  in  relation  to  the  results 
of  radical  criticism,  led  us  on  to  substantially  new 
ground.  No  attempt  need  now  be  made  to  sum- 
marize that  criticism,  for  it  was  made  in  such  a 
condensed  manner  that  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
make  it  much  more  compact. 

The  remainder  of  this  chapter  will  be  devoted  to 
the  mere  statement  of  some  of  the  main  conclu- 
sions to  which  our  critique  of  radical  criticism  has 
brought  us.  The  following  particulars  may  be 
noted  as  conclusions  from  our  discussions  :  — 

First :  the  philosophy  on  which  radical  criticism 
rests  is  one  which  is  inimical  to  Christianity,  as 
a  religion  having  in  it  a  supernatural  factor. 
Whether  it  be  the  deistic  tendency  which  renders 
the  supernatural  impossible,  or  the  pantheistic  ten- 
dency which  merges  the  natural  and  supernatural 
into  one,  the  results  to  the  Christian  system  are 
equally  serious.  That  radical,  or  rationalistic  criti- 
cism  assumes  one   or  other  of   these   tendencies, 


SUMMARY.  309 

we  have  seen  more  than  once  in  our  discussions. 
Hence,  we  signahze  its  false  philosophy,  and  insist 
on  the  vast  importance  of  having  a  true  philosophy 
of  the  relation  between  God  and  his  creatures,  and 
of  the  essential  principles  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment in  its  relation  to  all  forms  and  classes  of  be- 
ings. To  rule  out  special  revelation,  and  miracle, 
and  a  definite  providence,  by  the  terms  of  one's 
philosophy,  is  illegitimate,  and  yet  this  is  just  what 
radical  criticism  in  its  general  spirit  and  attitude 
really  does. 

Secondly  :  we  have  seen  reason  to  conclude  that 
the  principle  of  naturalistic  evolution  cannot  explain 
the  genesis  and  growth  of  the  religion  of  Israel, 
and  of  Christianity,  its  goal  and  fruitage.  Indeed, 
natural  evolution  alone  is  inadequate  to  explain  any 
grade  of  existence  which  has  in  it  factors  that  are 
not  found  in  the  lower  grades.  Thus  the  organic 
cannot  come  naturally  from  the  inorganic,  the  con- 
scious from  the  unconscious,  the  moral  from  the 
non-moral,  or  the  religious  from  the  non-religious. 
The  facts  support  this  view,  and  the  law  of  causa- 
tion confirms  it,  for  an  adequate  cause  of  the  new 
factor  in  the  higher  form  of  existence  is  required. 
So  in  regard  to  religion  and  its  development,  as 
seen  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The  law  of 
natural  evolution  is  degeneration,  and  the  adequate 
cause  of  the  advance  in  religious  thought  and  life 
seen  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  divine  agency  working 
in  a  supernatural  way,  in  chosen  men,  during  sue- 


310  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

cessive  ages.  This  is  the  true  view  of  the  philoso- 
phy of  rehgion,  and  it  condemns  radical  criticism 
at  its  very  outset. 

Thirdly  :  the  whole  analysis  of  the  documents  of 
which  the  Scriptures  are  supposed  to  have  been 
composed,  and  the  division  into  separate  codes  to 
which  the  Mosaic  system  is  subjected,  have  been 
seen  in  several  respects  to  be  forced  and  unnatural. 
As  this  is  a  cardinal  point  in  radical  criticism,  it  is 
worth  while  emphasizing  it.  There  is  so  much 
assumption,  and  so  many  suppositions  made,  and, 
at  present,  so  little  harmony  of  view  among  the 
critics  that  no  ' '  assured  results  of  criticism "  are 
yet  in  sight.  Moreover,  it  seems  that  having  as- 
sumed three  codes,  the  literature  must  be  made  to 
fit  this  assumption,  or  having  assumed  a  diversity 
of  documents,  a  codification  of  the  ritual  became 
necessary.  In  either  case,  the  method  of  proced- 
ure is  gratuitous,  for  the  simple  view  is  to  assume 
neither  distinct  documents  nor  successive  codes  and 
everything  remains  simple,  natural,  and  clear. 

Fourthly  :  we  have  seen  frequent  reason  to  con- 
clude that  radical  criticism  is  condemned  on  his- 
torical grounds.  This  is  virtually  conceded  by  the 
critics  themselves  when  they  assume  that  the  bib- 
lical history  must  be  reconstructed.  The  proposed 
reconstruction  is  required  because  the  theory  de- 
mands it,  not  because  historical  evidence  makes  it 
necessary.  The  result  of  this  reconstruction  of  the 
history  is  virtually  its  inversion.      Instead  of  mature 


SUMMARY.  311 

Mosaism  being  the  ideal  before  the  people  from  the 
first,  it  was  the  stage  last  reached.  The  prophets 
were  before  the  law,  the  Temple  prior  to  the  idea 
of  the  Tabernacle,  the  kingdom  before  any  direc- 
tions about  the  king  and  the  manner  of  the  king- 
dom. Then,  too,  the  absurdity  of  an  attempt  to 
reconstruct  the  history  without  any  requisite  mate- 
rials, but  in  an  ideal  way,  is  written  on  its  very 
face.  It  is  the  old  and  useless  attempt  of  a  man 
trying  to  transport  himself  over  a  high  fence  by  lift- 
ing up  his  feet  in  his  hands. 

Fifthly  :  if  the  historicity  of  the  Old  Testament 
narratives  be  made  out,  as  we  believe  it  may  be, 
against  radical  criticism,  then  many  important 
positions  of  that  criticism  are  refuted.  Our  dis- 
cussion has  enabled  us  to  see  several  of  these.  It 
has  shown  that  the  religious  life  and  sentiment  of 
the  age  of  Moses,  of  David,  and  of  the  early 
prophets,  was  such  as  to  render  it  possible  for  the 
religious  teaching  of  these  persons  to  have  been 
suitable  for  these  ages  ;  it  has  shown  that  silence 
concerning  the  observance  of  the  ritual  in  any  given 
age  does  not  prove  its  non-existence  in  that  age  ;  it 
has  shown  that  from  the  first  the  complete  Mosaic 
system  was  the  ideal  before  the  people,  but  that 
oftentimes  they  came  short  of  that  legal  and  ritual 
ideal  and  were  punished  for  defection  ;  and  it  has 
shown  that  the  predictive  element  in  prophecy  has 
reality.  These  are  some  of  the  main  positions  of 
radical  criticism  which  the  vindication  of  the  history 


312  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

refutes.  The  importance  of  the  historical,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  purely  linguistic  line  of  criti- 
cism, is  also  illustrated  at  this  point. 

Sixthly  :  the  silent  but  eloquent  testimony  of  the 
monuments  constitute  one  of  the  most  interesting 
and  valuable  lines  of  study  for  the  refutation  of 
radical  criticism  which  is  at  our  disposal  at  the 
present  day.  The  burden  of  this  testimony  goes  to 
show  that  the  critics  are  at  least  unhistorical  in 
their  procedure. 

Lastly  :  it  has  appeared  that  the  organic  connec- 
tion between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  is  a 
topic  to  which  radical  criticism  has  not  given  suf- 
ficient attention.  Perhaps  their  omission  to  discuss 
this  point  at  length,  was  dictated  by  prudential 
considerations,  for  we  believe  that  in  this  connec- 
tion one  of  the  very  great  weaknesses  of  radical 
criticism  will  appear.  In  all  biblical  studies,  and 
all  expositions  of  the  Christian  system,  both  Testa- 
ments must  be  taken  into  account.  The  religion  of 
Israel  does  not  stand  by  itself,  nor  does  the  Chris- 
tian system.  Both  are  included  under  the  view  we 
should  take  of  the  Christian  system  as  the  religion 
of  the  Bible.  This  being  the  case,  radical  criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament  must  be  estimated  in  part,  at 
least,  from  its  relation  to  the  New  Testament.  In 
our  discussions  we  have  seen  how  weak  radical 
criticism  is  at  this  point.  The  New  Testament  his- 
tory, the  prophetic  fulfillment  it  gives,  the  doctrinal 
and  redemptive  scheme  it  founds   on  the  Old  Tes- 


SUMMAR  V.  313 

tament,  and,  above  all,  the  direct  and  indirect 
teaching  of  our  Lord  interpreting  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  are  all  arranged  in  solid  phalanx  against 
radical  criticism.  To  be  consistent  on  New  Testa- 
ment ground,  radical  criticism  must  proceed  to  re- 
construct it  just  as  they  attempt  to  reconstruct  the 
Old  Testament.  We  shall  not  be  surprised  if  the 
next  move  of  radical  criticism  is  in  this  direction. 
When  this  is  done,  its  work  will  be  complete,  and 
its  doom  will  be  forever  sealed.  We  wait  and 
watch  meantime. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

CONCLUDING    REMARKS. 

We  are  now  in  sight  of  the  end  of  our  long  jour- 
ney. In  this  conckiding  chapter,  we  shall  present 
a  few  general  reflections,  with  which  our  discussions 
of  radical  criticism  may  fittingly  conclude.  These 
reflections  must  be  quite  general  in  their  nature, 
and  will  relate  chiefly  to  the  spirit  and  attitude  of 
conservative  criticism  at  this  juncture,  and  to  the 
prospective  outcome  of  the  present  debate  between 
it  and  radical  criticism. 

In  the  first  place,  we  repeat  what  has  been  said 
more  than  once,  that  the  Higher  Criticism  is  a 
legitimate  and  useful  branch  of  biblical  study.  It 
is  not  only  proper,  but  necessary,  that  the  topics 
embraced  under  this  study  should  be  investigated 
by  the  biblical  scholar.  We  insist  that  the  conserv- 
ative critic  has  a  perfect  right  to  this  field,  and  the 
tacit  assumption  that  the  radical  critic  is  the  only 
scholar  competent  to  handle  aright  the  topics  which 
pertain  to  the  Higher  Criticism  is  one  which,  in 
the  interests  of  true  critical  investigation,  we  ought 
by  no  means  to  allow.  All  the  questions  of  au- 
thorship, literary  features,  and  mode  of  composi- 
tion of  the  sacred  Scriptures  ;  all  debate  as  to  the 
[314] 


CONCLUDING   REMARKS.  315 

origin  and  growth  of  the  reHgion  of  Israel,  and  the 
nature  of  the  Mosaic  system,  together  with  all  re- 
lated historical  inquiries,  are  matters  which,  from 
the  conservative  standpoint,  not .  only  should  the 
biblical  scholar  feel  free  to  investigate,  but  he  should 
also  feel  that  it  is  his  duty  faithfully  to  canvass  this 
whole  field. 

In  the  second  place,  we  cannot  refrain  from  ut- 
tering a  protest  against  the  arrogant  claims  which 
the  radical  critics  so  often  make  for  a  monopoly  of 
competent  scholarship  in  this  field.  Indeed,  the 
situation  at  this  point  would  be  quite  amusing,  if 
it  had  not  also  its  serious  side.  Here  are  the  radi- 
cal critics,  and  a  great,  learned,  and  reverent  com- 
pany they  are.  The  world  had  never  before  beheld 
their  equal,  and  may  never  see  their  like  again. 
They  seem  to  know  more  about  what  took  place 
in  the  days  of  Moses,  of  David,  of  Josiah,  and  of 
Ezra,  than  the  persons  who  lived  at  or  near  the 
time  of  these  men.  And  yet  so  wonderful  is  the 
result  of  this  remarkable  modern  scholarship  that 
no  two  of  its  chief  leaders  are  entirely  agreed  as  to 
the  main  positions  to  be  held  and  taught,  as  settled 
forever  beyond  dispute.  Now,  we  ask,  what  ad- 
vantage in  ability,  in  culture,  in  spiritual  insight, 
and  in  logical  acumen,  can  these  radical  critics 
possibly  possess  .-*  For  our  own  part,  it  does  seem 
to  be  very  often  the  ability  to  pull  down  and  de- 
stroy that  they  chiefly  exhibit,  and  this  is  not  nec- 
essarily a  high  order  of  ability.     A  very  stupid  man 


316  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

may  deny  anything,  and  hold  to  his  denial  with 
tenacity ;  and  a  man  of  little  brains,  and  less  sense, 
can  raise  objections  to  any  well-established  truth. 
We  can  see  nothing  in  the  work  which  radical 
criticism  is  doing  which  argues  the  necessary  pos- 
session of  ability  and  scholarship  far  in  advance 
of  the  more  sober  or  conservative  critics.  It  is 
not  so  much  a  question  of  gifts  and  culture,  as  of 
standpoint  and  method  that  is  here  involved,  and 
from  this  view-point  the  conservative  has,  as  we 
think,    the   decided  advantage  in  the  discussion. 

In  the  third  place,  we  make  a  remark  on  the  pres- 
ent status  of  radical  criticism.  No  extensive  re- 
view of  the  situation  is  here  possible,  but  a  few 
simple  things  deserve  notice.  In  Germany,  where 
less  than  a  generation  ago,  modern  radical  theories 
were  born  and  cradled  in  the  nursery  of  the  Hegel- 
ian philosophy,  there  has  appeared,  in  recent  years, 
a  decided  reaction  against  extremely  radical  con- 
clusions. There  is,  at  the  present  time,  a  sort  of 
civil  war  going  on  among  the  critics  in  the  German 
universities,  and  during  the  last  two  or  three  years 
the  vltra  radical  school  has  had  decidedly  the  worst 
of  it.  The  people,  and  the  university  authorities, 
are  also  protesting  against  the  evils  of  rationalistic 
criticism.  In  Britain  matters  are  apparently  in 
the  balance.  Some  seem  to  be  tired  of  wearing  the 
second-hand  clothes  of  German  professors  ;  and  in 
Scotland,  the  latest  importation  in  the  person  of 
Professor  Pfleiderer,  of  Berlin,  to  give  the  Gifford 


CONCLUDING   REMARKS.  317 

Lectures  in  Glasgow,  turned  out  so  badly  as  to  call 
for  a  defense  of  sound  Christian  doctrine  at  the 
hands  of  three  Scottish  professors.  This,  we  trust, 
will  prove  a  healthy  lesson.  In  England,  the  crit- 
ics, especially  Driver  and  Cheyne,  are  fully  agreed 
upon  little  else  than  a  common  antagonism  to  what 
they  term  traditional  views.  In  America,  we  are 
in  the  thick  of  the  fray  yet,  with  here  and  there 
signs  that  the  tide  is  turning  against  the  radical  con- 
clusions. The  result  in  certain  recent  judicial  cases, 
and  the  excellent  writings  of  the  conservatives,  have 
had  a  decided  effect,  and  may  do  something  to 
check  its  spread.  Still  we  are  inclined  to  think 
that  it  will  run  its  course  here,  as  elsewhere,  and 
we  doubt  whether  we  have  seen  the  end  of  its  ca- 
reer yet  on  this  continent. 

In  the  fourth  place,  as  to  the  final  outcome  of 
the  whole  critical  movement,  a  word  or  two  should 
be  spoken.  Some  on  the  side  of  orthodox  doc- 
trinal truth  are  inclined  to  take  a  gloomy  view  of 
the  situation,  and  seem  to  think  that  the  case  for 
the  conservatives  is  almost  hopeless.  The  boasts 
of  the  radicals  are  suited  to  this  frame  of  mind, 
and  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  producing 
it.  Certainly,  this  hopelessness  of  some  conserva- 
tives is  a  spirit  which  is  very  pleasing  to  the  radi- 
cals, and  cannot  fail  to  cheer  them  on  to  supposed 
victory.  But  over  against  this  gloomy  view  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  cherish  a  bright  and  hopeful  atti- 
tude.    In   the    past,    again  and  again,    good  men 


318  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

have  trembled  for  the  ark  of  God  when  it  has  been 
assailed,  but  just  as  often  have  we  seen  it  pass 
through  the  conflict  unharmed,  and  perhaps  all  the 
stronger  because  of  the  conflict  safely  endured. 
So  we  are  convinced  it  will  be  in  this  case.  After 
the  stress  to  which  conservative  views  on  biblical 
questions  are  now  put  by  radical  criticism,  is  over, 
we  are  sure  that  if  past  history  means  anything, 
and  if  Christianity  still  has  its  divine  vitality,  as 
we  believe  it  has,  it  will  turn  out  that  the  Bible  is 
more  firmly  entrenched  as  the  word  of  God  than 
ever.  There  is  work,  much  work,  for  every  lover 
of  sound  views  on  Scripture  truth  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  gospel,  to  do  ;  but  this  work  may  be  con- 
ducted in  a  patient,  scholarly  temper  of  mind,  and 
with  a  hopefulness  of  spirit  which  will  ensure  suc- 
cess in  the  end.  And  all  the  while  we  may  re- 
member that  only  what  costs  much  is  after  all 
worth  much. 

In  the  fifth  place,  we  wish  to  insist  on  what  we 
believe  to  bo  equally  true  in  this  connection.  We 
are  fully  convinced  that  the  spirit,  methods,  princi- 
ples, and  coiiclusions  of  radical  criticism  are  ex- 
ceedingly dangerous  to  evangelical  truth.  Our 
conviction  is  that  if  the  general  conclusions  of 
radical  criticism  in  regard  to  the  origin,  growth, 
and  natur  '  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  and  in  regard 
to  the  presence  of  the  supernatural  in  the  entire 
Scriptures  be  adopted,  it  would  be  necessary  to  so 
reconstruct  the  main  contents  of  the  Christian  sys- 


CONCLUDING   REMARKS.  819 

tern  as  to  entirely  change  its  whole  scope.  The 
contention,  therefore,  that  the  critic  may  pursue 
his  critical  methods  without  reference  to  the  rela- 
tion which  these  methods  have  to  the  doctrinal 
system  imbedded  in  Scripture,  is  not  sound  in  itself 
considered,  and  is  an  exceedingly  dangerous  one  in 
its  practical  applications.  The  fact,  too,  that  the 
processes  of  the  radical  critics  go  far  deeper  than 
wliat  may  be  termed  the  surface  questions  of  a  lit- 
erary and  linguistic  nature,  adds  further  force  to 
this  consideration.  If  we  admit  the  radical  critical 
view,  in  regard  to  the  natural  evolutionary  nature 
of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  it  will  not  be  possi- 
ble to  hold  supernatural  views  of  the  New.  It  is, 
in  our  judgment,  a  matter  of  life  and  death  for 
evangelical  Christian  truth  and  life  to  determine 
whether  radical  critical  conclusions  shall  be  ad- 
mitted or  refuted.  Let  no  one  think  lightly  of  the 
issues  involved,  and  let  none  be  discouraged  in  the 
conflict.  The  truth,  even  if  at  times  crushed  to 
earth,  shall  rise  again. 

In  the  sixth  place,  an  interesting  question  arises 
when  we  seek  to  determine  how  far  these  radical 
critical  conclusions  can  be  held  in  harmon}^  with  a 
sincere  and  unreserved  subscription  to  the  stand- 
ards of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  In  cases  of  judi- 
cial process  for  heresy  respecting  these  views,  this 
question  at  once  becomes  an  exceedingly  difficult 
and  praetieal  one.  That  a  man  may  pursue  the  in- 
quiries to  which  Higher  Criticism  addresses  itself. 


320  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

is  freely  admitted,  so  that  in  itself  considered,  Higher 
Criticism  conducted  in  a  proper  way  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  loyal  acceptance  of  our  creed  sym- 
bols. But  if  this  criticism  proceeds  upon  false 
principles,  and  according  to  erroneous  methods, 
then  its  conclusions  may  be  contra-confessional, 
and  so  be  such  as  to  justly  call  for  inquiry  by  the 
Church  Court.  Further,  we  believe  that  radical 
criticism  and  its  naturalistic  conclusions  are  inca- 
pable of  being  harmonized  with  our  standards.  The 
doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture,  the  sinful  state  of  man, 
the  covenant  plan  of  grace,  the  essential  nature  of 
the  work  of  Christ,  and  the  spiritual  renovation 
which  man  needs,  are  all  points  where  conflict 
must  arise.  In  addition,  the  whole  tone  and  tem- 
per of  radical  criticism  —  in  a  word,  its  general 
spirit  —  is  not  in  tune  with  tlie  views  of  gospel 
truth  unfolded  in  the  confession  and  catechisms. 
There  are  therefore  limits  to  legitimate  criticism,  as 
there  are  also  to  sound  exegesis.  Radical  criticism 
in  our  judgment  transgresses  these  limits,  and  con- 
servative criticism  should  be  careful  to  keep  within 
the  proper  bounds,  which  are  necessarily  set  by  the 
nature  of  the  Christian  system. 

We  conclude  this  chapter  and  close  the  entire 
series  with  a  simple  practical  challenge.  Last 
year,  during  the  session  of  Louisville  Presbyterian 
Theological  Seminary,  the  annual  Catalogue  or  An- 
nouncement, as  is  usual  in  such  institutions,  was 
issued.      In  compiling  this  little  pamphlet  each  of 


CONCLUDING   REMARKS.  321 

the  six  members  of  the  faculty  had  a  .:,harc.  The 
brief  statement  concerning  each  school  v.'as  drawn 
up  by  the  professor  in  charge  of  that  school.  Some 
introductory  explanations  were  taken,  with  several 
changes  and  additions,  from  a  brief  Announcement 
issued  a  year  ago.  One  of  the  professors  drew  up 
some  brief  remarks  in  regard  to  the  general  work- 
ing of  the  seminary,  the  clerk  of  the  faculty  sup- 
plied the  roll  of  students  from  his  book,  and  the 
librarian  handed  in  his  article  upon  that  topic. 

Then  a  committee  of  two,  appointed  by  the  fac- 
ulty, took  all  this  undigested  material  thus  pro- 
vided, and  sought  to  reduce  it  to  an  orderly,  har- 
monious whole.  Some  of  the  statements  given 
by  the  professors  were  published  almost  without 
change,  others  were  modified,  and  one  or  two  Vv^ere 
almost  entirely  recast  in  order  to  reduce  all  to  sym- 
metrical form.  Then  the  president  of  the  board 
of  directors  revised  the  whole,  suggesting  some 
changes  which  were  adopted  by  the  committee. 
Then,  after  the  matter  was  set  up  m.  proof  hy  the 
printers,  some  further  changes  were  made  in  proof- 
reading, until,  after  all  these  revisions  or  redac- 
tions, it  came  forth  in  its  complete  form.  Now, 
we  are  prepared  to  submit  this  little  publication  of 
thirty  odd  pages  to  a  committee  of  radical  critics 
chosen  from  the  whole  world  of  modern  scholar- 
ship, and  challenge  them  to  make  an  analysis  of 
these  pages  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  how  much  of 
their  contents  is  due  to  the  several  professors,  how 


322  RADICAL    CRITICISM. 

much  to  the  redaction  of  the  committee  who  had 
its  pubhcation  in  charge,  and  how  much  is  due  to 
the  hand  of  the  president  of  the  board.  We  will 
give  the  committee  of  the  radical  critics  a  year  to 
bring  in  their  report,  and  it  needs  no  prophet  to 
say  that  the  report  will  be  wide  of  the  mark,  if 
they  should  be  bold  enough  to  make  any  at  all. 

If,  in  such  a  small  matter,  not  yet  a  year  old,  it 
is  virtually  impossible  to  trace  the  work  of  the  dif- 
ferent hands  which  helped  to  produce  it,  how  in- 
finitely more  difficult  is  the  task  which  radical  criti- 
cism undertakes  when  it  makes  the  attempt  to 
analyze  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  label 
each  portion  with  some  symbol  to  denote  its  age 
and  authorship.  Even  if  the  Scriptures  were  com- 
posed as  the  radical  critics  argue,  it  is  impossible 
now  to  make  the  analysis,  and  the  critics  who  try 
it  are  simply  building  castles  in  the  air.  Till  a 
simple  challenge,  like  the  one  above  issued,  is  suc- 
cessfully answered,  the  right  and  ability  of  the 
critics  to  present  an  assured  analysis  of  the  Old 
Testament  cannot  be  allowed.  Their  professed 
schemes  are  simply  impositions  which  only  a  hasty 
credulity  is  likely  to  accept. 

In  closing,  we  add  that  we  gladly  welcome  every 
legitimate  attempt  to  understand  more  fully  the 
sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Christian  system.  Even 
if  the  present  critical  movement  seems  at  times  to 
threaten  serious  harm  to  evangelical  faith,  yet  we 
feel  sure  that  the  divine  Hand  who  first  gave  the 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  323 

Scriptures  will  preserve  them  in  all  these  fires  of 
criticism,  and  bring  them  forth  as  gold  tried  by  the 
fire.  Nor  have  we  any  desire  to  remove  the  Script- 
ures from  the  most  rigid  scrutiny,  for  we  are  satis- 
fied that  the  more  the  Bible  is  inspected  the  more 
fully  its  divine  credentials  will  appear,  and  the 
more  it  is  exposed  to  the  friction  of  even  unfriendly 
criticism,  the  more  brightly  it  will  shine  in  its  own 
pure  and  native  luster. 

We  are  also  equally  sure  that  no  naturalistic 
view  of  the  gospel  scheme  will  long  meet  and  sat- 
isfy the  urgent  needs  of  sinful,  burdened,  struggling 
men,  or  permanently  enable  the  pulpit  to  maintain 
its  rightful  preeminence.  Any  critical  conclusions 
which  tend  to  naturalism,  or  to  dishonor  the  word 
and  Spirit  of  God,  are  fraught  with  danger.  What 
this  age,  and  every  age,  needs  is  not  naturalistic 
nostrums  for  evils  which  only  a  divine  remedy  can 
heal ;  and  every  pulpit  in  the  land  should  be,  not  a 
platform  where  dilettante  essays  on  almost  .every 
theme  save  the  gospel  are  delivered  for  the  enter- 
tainment of  the  hearers,  but  a  sacred  place  where 
the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God  is  earnestly,  lov- 
ingly, and  faithfully  declared  for  the  salvation  of 
sinful  men. 


HOW 


To  procure  these  books.  First  inquire  of  your 
local  bookseller  — if  not  to  be  had  remit  to  us 
the  amount  and  the  volume  or  volumes  will  be 
sent  by  first  return  mail  postpaid. 


a  selection  from 

Fleming  H.  Revell  Company's 

catalogue 


OUR  EASTERN  HOUSE: 
IX/'TTr'Or"  112  FIFTH    AVENUE,   NEW  YORK 

VV  11  C  IV  C     °'-'^  V/ESTERN   HOUSE: 

148  &  150  MADISON  STREET,  CHICAGO 

OUR  CANADIAN    HOUSE: 

140  &  142  YONGE  STREET,  TORONTO 


By=Paths  of  Bible  Knowledge, 

"  Tlte  volumes  which  are  being  issued  under  ike  above  litle  fully 
deserve  success.  They  have  been  entrusted  to  scholars  who  have  a 
special  acquaintance  with  the  subjects  ahout  which  they  severally 
speak." — The  Athkn^um. 


**♦  Each     i2mo,     cloth. 

1.  Cleopatra's  Needle.      By  the  Rev.  J.  King.      With  Illustra- 

tions  fl.OO 

2.  Fresh   Light  from   the  Ancient  Monuments.     By  A.  H. 

Sayce,  LL.D.    With  Facsimiles  from  Photographs 1.20 

3.  Recent  Discoveries  on  the  Temple  Hill  at  Jerusalem,      By 

the  Rev.  J.  King,  M.A.     With  Maps,  Plans  and  other  Illus- 
trations    1. 00 

4.  Babylonian  Life  and  History.    By  E.  A.  Wallis  Budge,  M.A. 

Illustrated      1.20 

5.  Galilee  In  the  Time  of  Christ    By  Selah  Merrill,  D.D.    With 

a  Map 1. 00 

6.  Egypt  and  Syria.     By  Sir  J.  W.  Dawrson,  F.G.S.,  F.R.S. 

Second  Edition,  revised  a  nd  enlarged.      Illustrated i .  20 

7.  Assyria:  its  Princes,  Priests,  and  People.    By  A.  H.  Sayce, 

M. A.,  LL.D.     Fully  Illustrated 1.20 

8.  The  Dwellers  on  the  Nile.     By  E.  A.  Wallis  Budge,  M.A. 

Fully  Illustrated 1.20 

g.  The  Diseases  of  the  Bible.     By  Sir  J.  Risdon  Bennett  .  i.oo 

0.  The  Trees  and  Plants  mentioned  In  the  Bible.    By  W.  H. 

Grosser,  B.Sc.    Illustrated  1.20 

1.  Animals  of  the  Bible.      By  H.  Chichester  Hart.     With  Illus- 

trations      1.20 

2.  The  HIttites ;  or,  The  Story  of  a  Forgotten  Empire.      By  A. 

H.  Sayce,  LL.D.      Illustrated 1.00 

3.  The  Times  of  Isaiah.     By  A.  H.  Sayce,  LL.D 80 

4.  Modern  Discoveries  on  the  Site  of  Ancient  Ephesus.      By 

the  late  J.  T.  Wood,  F  S. A.     Fully  Illustrated i.oo 

5.  Early  Bible  Songs.     By  A.  H.  Drysdale,  M.A i  00 

6.  Races  of  the  Old  Testament.      By  A.  H.  Sayce,  M.A.,  LL.D. 

Illustrations  from  Photographs  by  Mr.  Flinders  Petrie.  1.20 

7.  Life  and  Times  01  Joseph  In  the  Light  of  Egyptian  Lore. 

By  Rev.  H.  G.  Tomkins,  M.A i  00 

8.  Social  Life  Among  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians.      By 

A.  H.  Sayce.  M.A.    LL.D i.oo 

9.  The  Early  Spread  of  Religious  Ideas,  especially  In   the 

Far  East.     By  Dr,  Joseph  Edkins  i  .20 

0.  The   Money   of  the   Bible.      Illustrated  by  Facsimiles  and 

Wood  Cuts.      By  G.  C.  Williamson,  D.Lit i  .00 

1.  The  Sanitary  Code  of  the  Pentateuch.     By  Rev.  C.  G.  K. 

Gillespie.     (^In  preparation.) 

2.  The   Growth   and  Development  of  the  English  Printed 

Bible.      By  Richard   Lovett,   M.A.      Illustrated  by  many 
Facsimiles,    (/n  preparation.) 


Present  Day  Primers, 


Under  this  general  title  the  publication  has  begun  of  a  series 
of  Educational  books  designed  for  msc  in  Schools,  Seminaries,  and 
Bible  Classes,  as  well  as  for  the  general  reader.  Each  book  will  be 
complete  in  itself,  and  will  be  the  work  of  a  writer  especially  com- 
petent to  deal  with  the  svbject  of  which  it  treats. 


*^"'  Each  128  to  160  pp.,  i8mo,  flexible  cloth,  40c.  net. 

1 .  Early  Church  History.  A  Sketch  of  the  First  Four 
Centuries.  By  J.  Vernon  Bartlet,  M.A.,  Lecturer  on  Church 
History  in  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

"  The  book  has  a  value  first  for  the  general  reader  ;  it  would 
make  an  admirable  text-book  for  Colleges  ;  and  for  the  minister 
who  has  not  had  time  to  open  his  Church  History  since  he  left 
the  Seminary,  it  will  reveal  things  that  have  drifted  into  the 
haze  of  memory  and  make  them  bright  and  fresh  again."— 
y.  A/.  StiJIer,  Professor  in  Crozer  Seminary. 

2.  The  Printed  English  Bible.  By  R.  Lovett,  MA. 
With  many  Facsimiles  and  other  Illustrations. 

Gives,  in  brief  popular  style,  the  chief  facts  in  the  fascinating 
story  of  the  Printed  English  Bible.  The  author  has  selected  his 
illustrations  and  extracts  only  after  close  personal  study  of 
standard  copies  of  the  various  editions  described. 

3.  How  to  Study  the  English  Bible.  By  Canon 
Girdlestone. 

"  A  rich  store  of  valuable  information  and  eminently  wise 
counsel  is  contained  in  this  little  manual ;  indeed,  with  so  many 
handbooks  to  Bible  study  as  exist,  it  is  wonderful  that  so  much 
that  is  original  and  suggestive  can  be  supplied." — The  Christian. 

4.  A  Primer  of  Christian  Missions.    {In preparation.) 

5.  An  Introduction  to  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament.  By  Rev.  Samuel  G.  Green,  D.D.,  author 
of  "  Handbook  to  the  Grammar  of  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment," etc.     (^In  preparation.) 

6.  A  Primer  of  Hebrew  Antiquities,  By  Rev.  O.  C. 
Whitehouse,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Cheshunt 
College.     {In  preparation.) 

' .  A  Primer  of  Assyriology.  By  Rev.  A.  H.  Sayce, 
M.A.     {In  preparation.) 


Rev.  James  Sta/ker,  D.  D. 


"  Dr.  Stalker  is  strong  in  every  essential.  No  inferior  work  can 
be  charged  against  him.  Volume  after  volume  have  placed  hi$ 
claims  as  an  author  on  a  high  plane.'''' 

—The  Presbyterian  Review. 


The  Life  of  Jesus  Christ.     i2mo,  cloth $  .60 

"  Every  one  needs  a  brief,  comprehensive,  but  attractive  Life 
of  Christ,  that  may  be  almost  committed  to  memory,  so  that 
whatever  is  read  thereafter  may  find  its  fitting  place  in  our 
Lord's  history.  For  this  purpose  I  know  of  none  equal  to 
'Stalker's  Life  of  Christ.'  It  is  powerfully  and  charmingly 
written."— /^  N.  Pelojibet. 

''A  remarkably  lucid,  accurate,  and  suggestive  analysis  of 
the  Christ  Life.  We  value  it  as  a  rare  manual  for  the  study  of 
the  Divine  man.  Dr.  Stalker  possesses  the  gift  of  literarj 
etching.  He  takes  his  pencil  and,  with  a  few  lines,  he  puts  a 
lifelike  and  realistic  picture  upon  )x\%zd,n\di%."— The  Christian 
Weekly. 

The  Life  of  St.  Paul.     i2mo,  cloth  ,     60 

"  Bristling  with  information.  As  an  outline  of  Paul's  life  it 
cannot  be  surpassed."  — y^^  Christian  Inquirer  {N.  K.) 

Men  and  Morals.  Addresses.  i2mo,  cloth,  gilt 
top 1 .00 

Contents  :— Conscience ;  Christ  and  the  Wants  of  Humanity; 
The  Religion  of  To-Day  ;  The  Evidences  of  Religion  ;  Public 
Spirit ;  Temptation  ;  The  Four  Men  ;  Youth  and  Age. 

"  Pleasant  as  well  as  profitable  reading,  and  is  just  the  thing 
to  put  in  the  hands  of  a  young  man.  .  .  .  Admirable  models 
of  sermonizing."— jyif  Christian  Intelligencer. 

The  Four  Men.  An  Address  delivered  to  the  Students  at 
Yale  University.  i6mo.  Popular  Vellum  Series. . .  .20 
Cheaper  edition,  loc. ;    per  dozen ne(.  i.oo 

I.  The  Man  the  World  Sees.  2.  The  Man  Seen  by  the  Per- 
son Who  Knows  Him  Best.  3.  The  Man  Seen  by  Himself. 
4.  The  Man  Whom  God  Sees. 

"  A  better  address  to  young  persons  there  could  hardly  be, 
and  it  could  hardly  have  been  more  effective  in  personal  delivery 
than  it  is  in  print.  '—  The  Itidependent. 

Temptation.     A  Talk  to  Young  Men,       i6mo.      Popular 

Vellum  Series 20 

Cheaper  edition,  loc;    per  dozen net,  i.oo 

"  An  earnest  plea  for  closer  relations  with  Christ  to  make 
one  strong  to  resist  evil." — The  Baptist. 


WORKS  BY  DR.  A.  J.  GORDON. 


Dy-.  Gordon  is  a  jvriler  with  whom  to  differ  is  better  atid  mart 
suggestive  than  to  agree  7vith  some  others.  He  loves  the  truth, 
he  gives  his  readers  much  that  is  true  and  deeply  of  the  essence  oj 
Christianty. — The  Independent. 

The  Holy  Spirit  in  Missions.    i2mo.,    cloth,  gilt 
top I1.25 

A  new  volume  by  this  author  is  always  welcomed.  The 
theme  of  this  new  work,  as  treated  by  Dr.  Gordon,  is  sure  to  be 
full  of  deepest  interest. 

Ecce  Venit;  Behold  He  Cometh.     Paper,  net,  50c.; 
cloth ^ $1-25 

It  is  impossible  to  read  this  book  without  being  stimulated 
by  it  and  getting  higher  and  fresher  views  ol  some  aspects  of 
Christianity  which  are  perhaps  dwelt  on  less  than  they  should 
be. ' ' — Indepen  den  t. 

In  Christ;  or,  The  Believer's  Union  With  His  Lord. 

Seventh  Edition.    Faper,  net,  35c.;  cloth |ioo 

"We  do  not  remember  since  Thomas  a  Kempis  a  book  so 
thoroughly  imbued  with  a  great  personal  love  to  Christ.  It  is 
evidently  the  happy  result  of  hours  of  high  communion  with 
Him." — Boston  Courier.  * 

The  Ministry  of  Healing;  or,  Miracles  of  Cur*  in 
All  Ages.  Third  Edition.  Paper,  net,  50c. ;  cloth  $1.25 
"An  interesting  and  thoughtful  work.  Dr.  Gordon  mar- 
shals together  witnesses  from  all  ages  and  all  classes  in  favor  of 
hisbelief  that  cures  may  still  be  wrought  through  prayer."— 
British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review. 

The  Two=Fold  Life;  or,  Christ's  Work  for  Us,  and 
Christ's  Work  in  Us.  Paper,  net,  50c.;  cloth.  .;5S  1.25 
"Distinguished  by  exquisite  purity  of  thought,  by  deep 
spiritual  insight,  and  by  great  strength  of  practical  argument. 
The  work  is  one  of  great  spiritual  beauty  and  helpfulness." — 
Baptist  Magazine. 

Grace  and  Qlory;  Sermons  for  the  Life  That  Now 
Is  and  That  Which  Is  to  Come.     Paper,  net,  50c. ; 

cloth |i-5o 

_  "Here  we  have  power  without  sensationalism;  calm  thought, 
living  and  earnest,  expressed  in  forcible  language;  the  doctrine 
orthodox,  evangelical,  practical.  We  shall  be  surprised  if  these 
discourses  are  not  reprinted  by  an  linglish  house."— C.  H. 
Spurgeon.  {  , 

The  First  Thing  in  the  World;  or,  'ihe  Primacy 

of  Faith.     Vellum  paper  covers %  .20 

Cheaper  edition, popular  vellum  series 10 

•'There  was  a  fear  lest  the  prominence  given  the  exceeding 
beauty  and  umbrageousness  of^"Love"  should  overshadow  the 
ulster  grace  of  "Faith,"  but  Dr.  Gordon  has  rescued  us  from  the 
danger  of  forgetting  that  faith  in  Christ  is  the  foundation  pf  our 
Chnstmti  \\i^."— Christian  o,t  Work. 


Rev.  Frederick  B.  Meyer,  B.  A, 

"  Few  books  of  recent  years  are  better  adapted  to  instruct  and 
help  Christians  than  those  of  this  author.  He  is  a  man  'mighty 
in  the  Scriptures/  " — D.  L.  Moody. 


Old  Testament  Heroes.     i2mo,  doth,  each $i.oo 

Joshua  and  the  Land  of  Promise. 
Moses,  the  Servant  of  God. 
Joseph  :   Beloved  -  Hated— Exalted. 
Israel:  A  Prince  with  God. 
Abraham;  or,  The  Obedience  of  Faith. 
Elijah  and  the  Secret  of  His  Power. 

"  Such  studies  as  these  may  serve  as  models  to  those  who  are 
grappling  with  the  problem  of  a  Sunday-night  preaching  ser- 
vice. These  sermons  are  of  exceptional  excellence." — T/tn 
Golden  Ritle. 

The  Christian  Life  Series.      i8mo,  cloth,  each  50c.; 
white  cloth,  each 60 

Key  Words  of  the  laaer  Life. 

The  Future  Teases  of  the  Blessed  Life. 

The  Present  Tenses  of  the  Blessed  Life. 

The  Shepherd  Psalm. 

Christian  Living. 

"  The  Christian  Life  series  of  books  by  F.  B.  Meyer  are  well 
adapted  to  inspire  the  purpose  of  holy  living." — TAe  Central 
Presbyterian. 

The  Expository  Series.     121x10,  cloth,  each i.oo 

The  Way  Into  the  Holiest.     An  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  to 

the  Hebrews. 
The  Life  and  Light  of  Men.     Expositions  in  John's  Gospel. 
Tried  by  Fire.     E.xpositions  of  First  Epistle  of  Peter. 

"  These  expositions  have  the  character  of  all  Mr.  Meyer's 
writings.  They  combine  devout  insight  into  the  rich  resources 
of  the  Word  of  God.  with  skill  in  adapting  it  to  the  scriptural 
needs  of  his  readers."-  7"A(f  6".  5.  Times. 

Envelope  Series  of  Booltlets.     Packets  Nos.  i  and  2, 
each  containing  12  Tracts,  assorted net,     .20 

Choice  Extracts  from  the  Writings  of  Rev.  F.  B.  Meyer. 
Compiled  by  Rev.  B.  Fay  Mills.     24mo,  paper,  each  5c.; 

per  dozen net,     .35 

Larger  edition,  i6mo,  paper 15 


FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 

Chioaoo  New  Yobk  Toeonto 


Date  Due 


.</ 


'1  ';  . 


!  'v' 


V  »     A  f^  4*1        "Til 


^M> 


"■A'^. 


•5p»'-'v'       ■' 


■m 


■■V*S 


ni:^^:^-^'^-'-' 


\         ,,1.1', 


BS1160.B36 

Radical  criticism  :  an  exposition  and 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


